Cisco v. UPS - 328 Pa. Super. 300, 476 A.2d 1340 (1984)

Rule:

There is no non-statutory cause of action for an employer's termination of an at-will employment relationship. However, an employee at-will may have a cause of action against the employer for wrongful discharge when the discharge threatens public policy. Where the complaint itself discloses a plausible and legitimate reason for terminating an at-will employment relationship and no clear mandate of public policy is violated thereby, an employee at-will has no right of action against his employer for wrongful discharge.

Facts:

As a result of a delivery made in the course of his employment, appellant Joseph Cisco, an at-will employee of appellee United Parcel Service, was charged with theft and trespass. For that reason, his employment was terminated. After appellant was acquitted of the charges, he filed an action against appellee. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the criminal charges which were filed against appellant provided appellee with a plausible and legitimate reason for terminating his employment, and that no public policy was violated thereby. Appellant challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could appellee employer be held liable for wrongful discharge?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing appellant's action. The court noted that the situation gave rise to an inference that the reputation and business activity of appellee were jeopardized by appellant's mere arrest, even though it ultimately resulted in an acquittal. The court found that while the full panoply of rights incident to a criminal defendant were entitlements of appellant, including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the rights that were ensured by both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions were not necessarily meant to, nor could they, be superimposed into appellant's remaining life experiences. The court concluded that a plausible and legitimate reason for appellant's discharge existed because appellee was protecting its reputation by discharging appellant. Moreover, the case did not violate any public policy.