John Novosel v. Nationwide Insurance Company
721 F.2d 894 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An at-will employee has a cause of action for the tort of wrongful discharge when the termination violates a clear mandate of public policy, which may be derived from an employee's constitutionally protected rights of political expression and association.
Facts:
- John Novosel was an employee of Nationwide Insurance Company from December 1966 until November 18, 1981.
- Over his fifteen-year career, Novosel had steadily advanced through the company's ranks and had an unblemished disciplinary record.
- In October 1981, Nationwide circulated a memorandum soliciting all employees to participate in a lobbying effort to support the passage of the 'No-Fault Reform Act' in the Pennsylvania legislature.
- The lobbying effort required employees to obtain signatures on coupons supporting the proposed legislation.
- Novosel refused to participate in the lobbying campaign.
- Novosel also privately stated his opposition to the company's political stance on the legislation.
- Nationwide terminated Novosel's employment on November 18, 1981, which Novosel alleged was solely due to his refusal to lobby and his political opposition.
Procedural Posture:
- John Novosel filed a complaint against Nationwide Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging tortious wrongful discharge and breach of an implied contract.
- Nationwide filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The district court granted Nationwide's motion to dismiss both claims.
- Novosel, as appellant, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does terminating an at-will employee for refusing to participate in the employer's political lobbying efforts and for privately opposing the employer's political stance violate a clear mandate of public policy, thereby creating a cause of action for wrongful discharge under Pennsylvania law?
Opinions:
Majority - Adams
Yes. Terminating an at-will employee for refusing to participate in the employer's political lobbying violates a clear mandate of public policy and states a claim for wrongful discharge. The at-will employment doctrine is not absolute and can be limited by a public policy exception. Pennsylvania law recognizes that an employee may have a cause of action for wrongful discharge where the termination contravenes a clear mandate of public policy. This public policy need not be explicitly declared in a statute; it can be derived from important constitutional principles, such as the freedom of speech and political association found in the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions. The court reasoned that the societal interest in protecting an employee's political freedoms from coercion by an employer with significant economic power is as compelling as policies protecting jury duty or the filing of workers' compensation claims. Drawing an analogy to cases involving public employees, the court found that while state action is not present, the underlying public policy of protecting the political process from distortion and safeguarding individual political freedom is sufficient to support a common law tort claim against a private employer.
Dissent from denial of rehearing en banc - Becker
The panel's decision announces an overly broad public policy exception that threatens to overrule the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's holding in Geary. The opinion improperly ignores the state action requirement of First Amendment jurisprudence by extending principles from public employee cases to a private employment relationship. Furthermore, the court failed to properly weigh other significant public policy interests, such as the corporation's own First Amendment rights to political speech, the public's economic interest in efficient corporate performance, and a company's legitimate interest in commanding employee loyalty to pursue its economic objectives.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine by recognizing that an employee's constitutional rights can be the source of public policy limiting a private employer's right to discharge. It blurs the traditional line between public and private sector employment concerning free speech protections, suggesting that the coercive economic power of a private employer can implicate public policy concerns similar to those raised by government action. This precedent opens the door for employees to bring wrongful discharge claims based on infringements of political freedom, requiring courts to balance an employee's rights against the employer's business interests, and potentially impacting corporate political activities involving employees.
Unlock the full brief for John Novosel v. Nationwide Insurance Company