Beidler v. WR Grace, Inc.

Decision Date21 November 1978
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 78-2482.
Citation461 F. Supp. 1013
PartiesJoseph BEIDLER v. W. R. GRACE, INC.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Nicholas Noel, III, Bethlehem, Pa., for plaintiff.

R. D. Greenfield, Bala Cynwyd, Pa., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TROUTMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff brings this action against defendant, his former employer, alleging that his discharge was a violation of an implied contract between himself and defendant, and that certain actions of defendant, in terminating plaintiff's employment, constituted wrongful harassment amounting to tortious infliction of mental and emotional distress.

Defendant moves to dismiss, contending that an employment contract is terminable at will and that there was no breach of contract in the termination of plaintiff's employment. Defendant also contends that there can be no tortious infliction of mental distress if there is neither fear of and danger of physical impact nor actual impact, and if the acts complained of are not extreme and outrageous and beyond the bounds of human decency.

Since 1891 the established law in Pennsylvania has been that in the absence of a specific restriction, either statutory or contractual, a contract of employment may be terminated at any time, for any reason or for no reason. Henry v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co., 139 Pa. 289, 21 A. 157 (1891). This law has recently been reiterated, Geary v. United States Steel Corporation, 456 Pa. 171, 319 A.2d 174 (1974) and has been adopted by the courts of this Circuit. Davis v. U. S. Steel Supply, 581 F.2d 335 (3d Cir. 1978); McKinney v. Armco Steel Corporation, 270 F.Supp. 360 (W.D.Pa. 1967); Geib v. Alan Wood Steel Co., 419 F.Supp. 1205 (E.D.Pa.1976).

The law of Pennsylvania regarding contractual provisions of employment, and how they affect terminability, is set forth in Cummings v. Kelling Nut Co., 368 Pa. 448, 451-2, 84 A.2d 323, 325 (1951):

"The general rule is that when a contract provides that one party shall render services to another, or shall act as an agent, or shall have exclusive sales rights within certain territory, but does not specify a definite time or prescribe conditions which shall determine the duration of the relation, the contract may be terminated by either party at will * * * (Citations omitted). The burden is on the plaintiff in such cases to overcome the presumption by showing facts and circumstances establishing some tenure of employment * * * (Citations omitted). The intention of the parties governs. One relying on the contract as providing for a reasonable length of time must establish something in the nature and circumstances of the undertaking which would create the inference that a definite or reasonable period of employment was actually contemplated by the parties."

See also Jackman v. Military Publications, Inc., 350 F.2d 383 (3d Cir. 1965); Green v. Medford Knitwear Mills, Inc., 408 F.Supp. 577 (E.D.Pa.1976). There is no natural or vested right to seniority; seniority arises only as a result of a contract express or clearly implied. Madera v. Monongahela Railway Co., 356 Pa. 460, 52 A.2d 329 (1947); Fawcett v. Monongahela Railway Co., 391 Pa. 134, 137 A.2d 768 (1958). In the absence of an agreement for a fixed period of time, a hiring is a hiring at will and gives no right of seniority. Under such a contract of hiring, either party may terminate the contract at will at any time. Id. Stating that an employee's compensation is for a stated amount for a stated period does not make the contract one for a definite period, or even raise a presumption that the hiring was for such period. Trainer v. Laird, 320 Pa. 414, 183 A. 40 (1936).

In the case before us, there is no indication that there were any provisions for seniority, or if there were, that they applied to plaintiff. Exhibit A to the complaint indicates that there was a procedure to be utilized upon termination of employment. For instance, an "exit interview" was to have taken place outlining the reasons for termination; evaluations were to be made of employee performance and the employee was to be advised as to the basis for the evaluations, the method in arriving at decisions, and the strong points and shortcomings of an employee; penalties of suspension or dismissal, as well as reprimand, could be imposed for a series of offenses; immediate dismissal would be imposed for another series of graver offenses. See Complaint Exhibit A. Despite plaintiff's contentions that these regulations constitute the basis of an implied contract, there is nothing therein to indicate that they are seniority provisions. Absent a seniority provision, the law of Pennsylvania clearly and firmly holds that an employment contract may be terminated at any time for any reason by either party.

We note that Geary v. United States Steel Corporation, supra, indicated that the absolute right of an employer to discharge an employee at will may be modified, but refused to so modify the law based on the facts before the Court. This potential modification was acknowledged by the Circuit Court of Appeals for this Circuit in Davis v. U. S. Steel Supply, supra. However, as the Court in Keddie v. Pennsylvania State University, 412 F.Supp. 1264, 1278 (E.D.Pa. 1976)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Hinson v. Cameron
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1987
    ...v. Golden Oil Co., 600 P.2d 330-31 (Okla.1979).3 LaRocca v. Xerox Corp., 587 F.Supp. 1002, 1004 (S.D.Fla.1984); Beidler v. W.R. Grace, Inc., 461 F.Supp. 1013, 1016 (E.D.Pa.1978), aff'd mem., 609 F.2d 500 (3rd Cir.1979); Sabertay v. Sterling Drug Inc., 114 A.D.2d 6, 497 N.Y.S.2d 655, 657 (19......
  • Burch v. Wdas AM/FM, CIVIL ACTION No. 00-4852 (E.D. Pa. 6/28/2002)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • June 28, 2002
    ...the at-will presumption. See Carlson v. Arnot-Agoden Memorial Hospital, 918 F.2d 411, 415 (E.D.Pa. 1990); Beidler v. W.R. Grace, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 1013, 1015 (E.D.Pa. 1978) (compensation for stated amount for stated period does not make contract one for definite period), aff'd, 609 F.2d 50......
  • King v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 15, 1987
    ...263 A.2d at 121; [ (1970) ] accord: Wisniewski [v. Johns-Manville Corp.,], 759 F.2d at 275; [ (3d Cir.1985) ] Beidler v. W.R. Grace, Inc., 461 F.Supp. 1013, 1016 (E.D.Pa.1978), aff'd without op. 609 F.2d 500 (3d Cir.1979). [emphasis * * * * * * More important, appellants have not referred t......
  • Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1985
    ...manuals that purport to enhance job security. See, e.g., Caster v. Hennessey, 727 F.2d 1075 (11th Cir.1984); Beidler v. W.R. Grace, Inc., 461 F.Supp. 1013 (E.D.Pa.1978), aff'd, 609 F.2d 500 (3d Cir.1979); Uriarte v. Perez-Molina, 434 F.Supp. 76 (D.D.C.1977); Schroeder v. Dayton-Hudson Corp.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT