 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Weaver v. Harpster10/21/2005
would "contravene the legislature's intent to limit employment discrimination claims to employers with four employees or more." (Appellees' Brief at 8). They further contend that any complaint by Appellants should be directed to the Pennsylvania General Assembly and not to this Court.
16 We do not construe the Legislature's decision to regulate only those employers with more than four employees as a tacit endorsement of sexual discrimination against their employees; there remains a clear public policy to prevent sexual discrimination in the workplace. Again, Mamlin, supra,is instructive:
Public policy, in the administration of the law by the courts, is essentially different from what may be public policy in the view of the legislature. With the legislature, it may be and often is, nothing more than expediency. The public policy which dictates the enactment of a law is determined by the wisdom of the legislature. Public policy . . . with [the legislature] . . . may be and often is, "nothing more than expediency"; but with [the courts], it must, and may only be a reliance upon consistency with sound policy and good morals as to the consideration or the thing to be done.
Id. at 409 (citations omitted). Therefore, where an employee is prevented from bringing a sexual discrimination suit under the PHRA only because his or her employer has less than four employees, we find a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.
17 Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|