Category: Wrongful Termination

Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Public Policy Needs Particularity

By ,

SPG

In Spyridakis v. Riesling Group, Inc., 2009 WL 3209478 (E.D. Pa. 2009), the plaintiff-employee brought a claim for wrongful termination on the basis of defendant-employer’s alleged violations of public policy, specifically the right to free speech and to petition government under the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions. Additionally, Spyridakis claimed that federal and state labor, employment, and tax laws were also violated. Spyridakis alleged that Riesling Group terminated her for “inquiring with the Bureau about whether defendant properly treated her employment as that of an independent contractor” and the defendant evaded federal and state laws by “classifying workers as independent contractors, but treating them as employees.”

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Spyridakis’ wrongful termination claim because of her failure to identify a particular statute, or other source of public policy, that proscribes such conduct. The court explained that under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff, under these circumstances, must point to specific violations of federal or state law to the extent they embody public policy, and show that they have been violated. The court further explained that Pennsylvania law limits claims of constitutional violations of public policy to incidents involving state actors (and here, the employer was not a state actor).

For more information, call our employment lawyers in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Wrongful Termination Lawyers: Doctor’s Case May Proceed

By ,

SPG

On February 24, 2016 the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled to allow Plaintiff, Dr. Muhamad Aly Rifai, to move forward on his claims for breach of contract and wrongful termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Rifai v. CMS Medical Care Corporation, et al., Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CMS hired him in May 2011 for a three-year term of employment, which was subsequently renewed a year later. The employment contract provided that either Plaintiff or CMS could terminate the agreement by giving the other party at least 120 days’ notice of the intent to terminate, or CMS could terminate immediately for cause.

Plaintiff alleges that on January 2, 2013, Plaintiff was given 120 days’ notice that he would be terminated on May 7, 2013. However, Plaintiff alleged that only five days later he was terminated for cause, effective May 7, 2013. Plaintiff thereafter filed suit, claiming Defendants fired him due to his Syrian ethnic background, Islamic religious beliefs, and the perception that he was mentally disabled. The Eastern District ruled that Plaintiff plead sufficient facts to allege breach of contract and a claim under the ADA.

The Court ruled that it found “that plaintiff sets forth sufficient facts to demonstrate that defendants regarded him as having an impairment,” specifically noting how Rifai’s complaint explained that at the time of his termination, defendants told various employees Rifai suffered from a mental impairment and was mentally unstable, unable to safely perform his medical duties.

For more information, call Philadelphia wrongful termination lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.