M.A.E. v. Doe & Roe

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

M.A.E. v. Doe & Roe

566 A.2d 285, 388 Pa. Super. 589, 1989 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3379, 51 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 529

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 13, 1989

Docket508

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 566 A.2d 285 (M.A.E. v. Doe & Roe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

M.A.E. v. Doe & Roe, 566 A.2d 285, 388 Pa. Super. 589, 1989 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3379, 51 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 529 (Pa. 1989).

Pincite

Opinions

POPOVICH, Judge:

This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissing appellant’s complaint. J.J.E., appellant, filed a complaint alleging tortious discrimination against his employer, Doe & Roe, owners of a restaurant, for wrongful termination of employment. Appellant contends he was discharged from his job for being homosexual and contracting Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, i.e., AIDS. Appellant claims this is against public policy.

The recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Clay v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc., 370 Pa.Super. 497, 536 A.2d 1375 (1988), allocatur granted, 518 Pa. 647, 544 A.2d 959 (1988), rev’d in part, 522 Pa. 86, 559 A.2d 917 (1989), is on point. The Court stated that the intended forum for addressing grievances of this sort is the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. There was no intent to give broad, unrestricted access to civil actions, outside the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, alleging discriminatory termination of at-will employment. Appellant’s failure to exercise the proper method for addressing his grievances forecloses him from pursuing judicial recourse.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

CAVANAUGH, J., files a concurring statement.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

POPOVICH, Judge:

This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissing appellant’s complaint. J.J.E., appellant, filed a complaint alleging tortious discrimination against his employer, Doe & Roe, owners of a restaurant, for wrongful termination of employment. Appellant contends he was discharged from his job for being homosexual and contracting Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, i.e., AIDS. Appellant claims this is against public policy.

The recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Clay v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc., 370 Pa.Super. 497, 536 A.2d 1375 (1988), allocatur granted, 518 Pa. 647, 544 A.2d 959 (1988), rev’d in part, 522 Pa. 86, 559 A.2d 917 (1989), is on point. The Court stated that the intended forum for addressing grievances of this sort is the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. There was no intent to give broad, unrestricted access to civil actions, outside the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, alleging discriminatory termination of at-will employment. Appellant’s failure to exercise the proper method for addressing his grievances forecloses him from pursuing judicial recourse.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

CAVANAUGH, J., files a concurring statement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 A.2d 285, 388 Pa. Super. 589, 1989 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3379, 51 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mae-v-doe-roe-pa-1989.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack