CourtCases2010

Civil action no 95 5712 jan 23 1996 at will employee

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: article I, section 23. Moreover, I cannot help but note that any such effort comes perilously close to the discredited practice of eugenics. The use of tobacco products is more troubling, however. While legal, tobacco use nevertheless is an activity increasingly regulated by the law. If the federal government, for instance, chose to regulate tobacco as a controlled substance, I have no trouble saying that this act alone does not undermine anyone's privacy right. However, regulation is not the issue here because tobacco use today remains legal. The sole question is whether the government may inquire into off-job-site behavior that is legal, however unhealthy it might be. In light of the inherently poor fit between the [**14] governmental objective and the ends actually achieved, I am more inclined to agree with the district court that the right of privacy has been violated here. I might reach a different result if the objective were better served by the means chosen. SHAW, J., concurs. 69 70 71 Case # 10 SMYTHE vs. PILLSBURY United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. Michael A. SMYTH v. The PILLSBURY COMPANY. Civil Action No. 95-5712. Jan. 23, 1996. At-will employee brought action against employer alleging wrongful discharge. Former employer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The District Court, Weiner, J., held that termination of at-will employee for transmitting inappropriate and unprofessional comments over employer's e-mail system did not violate public policy and, accordingly, employee could not maintain a wrongful discharge action under public policy exception to general rule that at-will employee may be discharged at any time. Motion granted. A claim may be dismissed for failure to state a claim only if plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of claim that would entitle him to relief. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b) (6), 28 U.S.C.A. On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, reviewing court must consider only those facts alleged in complaint and accept all allegations as true. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.A. As a general rule, Pennsylvania law does not provide a common law cause of action for wrongful discharge of at-will employee. Pennsylvani...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online