Harrison v. Health Network Labs. Ltd. P'ship

• Decision Date: 16 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. 51 MAP 2019,51 MAP 2019
• Citation: 232 A.3d 674
• Parties: Karen HARRISON, Appellee v. HEALTH NETWORK LABORATORIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, and Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc., Appellants
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

232 A.3d 674

Karen HARRISON, Appellee

v.HEALTH NETWORK LABORATORIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, and Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc., Appellants

No. 51 MAP 2019

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: November 19, 2019

Decided: June 16, 2020

OPINION

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY

We granted discretionary review to consider whether the Superior Court erred in holding the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), 43 P.S. §§ 951 - 963, does not preclude a wrongfully terminated employee from filing a court action for retaliatory discharge under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law (Whistleblower Law), 43 P.S. §§ 1421 - 1428, when the plaintiff reported discriminatory conduct made unlawful by the PHRA, but was not herself the subject of the underlying discrimination. After careful review, we conclude the Superior Court did not err in so holding, and we therefore affirm.

I. Background

Appellee Karen Harrison (Harrison) held an administrative position for appellants, Health Network Laboratories Limited Partnerships and Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc. (collectively Health Network), or one of their acquired organizations, for approximately eighteen years.¹ Amended Complaint at ¶¶6-9. From 2012 until her discharge, Harrison's title was "Manager, Quality," a position which, according to Harrison, required her to meet with coworkers to ensure they were performing in a satisfactory and safe working environment. Id . at ¶¶10-11. In March of 2015, Harrison received a complaint from a Health Network employee expressing concerns about allegedly abusive, discriminatory, and harassing conduct by an IT department supervisor, which was known to and went unchecked by the supervisor's immediate superior. Id . at ¶¶13-14. Harrison initially reported the concerns to Health Network's Chief Operating Officer/Chief Compliance Officer, without identifying the complainant or supervisors by name, and requested the appointment of an ombudsman to address the concerns. Id . at ¶¶18-19. No ombudsman was appointed, and the concerns went unaddressed. Id . at ¶¶20-21. In October of 2015, the complainant employee resigned, providing a letter which memorialized her experience with the IT supervisor's conduct and identified the offending supervisor by name; she forwarded the letter to Harrison as well as other Health Network employees. Id . at ¶¶21, 23. Harrison shared the letter with her chain of command on October 19, 2015, but no corrective action was taken with the IT supervisor. Id . at ¶¶24-25. On November 19, 2015, Health Network terminated Harrison. Id . at ¶26. Health Network's stated reason for firing Harrison was for use of foul language at an after-hours banquet; however, Harrison averred this explanation was pretextual in light of her exemplary personnel record, and her firing was instead retaliation for her attempts to "intervene in and deter the illegal, threatening, abusive and discriminatory conduct" of the IT supervisor. Id . at ¶¶28-30.

Harrison filed an action in the court of common pleas alleging a single count of retaliation pursuant to Pennsylvania's Whistleblower Law.² The Whistleblower Law provides a civil remedy for employees who are discharged or otherwise retaliated against for making a good faith report of, inter alia , wrongdoing by a publicly-funded employer.³ See 43 P.S. §§ 1423 -24. The Whistleblower Law includes violations of federal or state statutes or regulations "which [are] not of a merely technical or minimal nature" as types of reported wrongdoing that support a claim of actionable retaliation. Id . at § 1422. Specifically, Harrison alleged she was fired as retaliation for reporting wrongdoing she witnessed, i.e ., discriminatory and abusive conduct by one co-employee against another, which constituted violations of the PHRA.⁴ Amended Complaint at ¶¶30, 37-38. Health Network filed preliminary objections raising, in pertinent part, legal insufficiency of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4), and seeking dismissal of the case with prejudice. Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint at ¶¶36, 63. According to Health Network, the PHRA is the exclusive state law remedy for unlawful workplace discrimination, and contains its own specific provision prohibiting retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by the PHRA; Health Network therefore argued Harrison could only pursue her retaliation claim under the PHRA, which requires claimants to exhaust their administrative remedies first — i.e. , file an administrative charge of discrimination with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) and submit to its investigation, conciliation, and adjudication procedures — before advancing a claim in court. Id . at ¶¶43-51, citing , inter alia , 43 P.S. § 955(d) (PHRA provision prohibiting discrimination by employer against "any individual because such individual has opposed any practice forbidden by this act"), Weaver v. Harpster , 601 Pa. 488, 975 A.2d 555, 567 n. 10 (2009) ("[T]he legislature has made the PHRA the exclusive state law remedy for unlawful discrimination, preempting the advancement of common law claims for wrongful discharge based on claims of discrimination.").

The trial court sustained Health Network's preliminary objections, determining Harrison was required to file her complaint with the PHRC and exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking redress under the PHRA in court. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/9/2018, at 3. The court further explained it viewed proceeding on the Whistleblower Law claim as thwarting the intent of the PHRA because it would permit Harrison to skip the mandatory PHRC investigation into her retaliation claim, and would deny Health Network the opportunity to reach a conciliation agreement before the PHRC. Id . at 4. In dismissing Harrison's complaint, the court concluded Health Network's alleged retaliation against Harrison for her opposition to illegal workplace discrimination fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the PHRA, thus she failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under the Whistleblower Law and failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PHRA. Id .

Harrison appealed, and a three-judge panel of the Superior Court reversed the trial court's decision.⁵ See Harrison v. Health Network Labs. Ltd. P'ships , No. 365 EDA 2018, unpublished memorandum, 2018 WL 6520982 (Pa. Super. filed December 12, 2018). Reasoning that the trial court's analysis appeared to conflate a claim for violation of the PHRA (which requires pursuit of administrative remedies) with a Whistleblower Law claim (which does not), the panel concluded Harrison was not required to invoke the PHRA's administrative remedies in order to pursue a retaliation claim where the alleged violation of the PHRA was the underlying wrongdoing, rather than a discriminatory act perpetrated against Harrison. Id . at 8-9. The panel further held that, because Harrison had sufficiently pleaded allegations to establish a cognizable claim under the Whistleblower Law, i.e. , she made a good faith report of wrongdoing by her employer, the trial court erred when it sustained Health Network's preliminary objections. Id . at 9-10.

Health Network sought allowance of appeal, and we granted discretionary review of the following issue:

Whether the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), including its requirement for exhaustion of remedial administrative procedures, provides the exclusive remedy for retaliation claims ostensibly brought under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law ("Whistleblower Law"), where the underlying basis for a Whistleblower Law retaliation claim is discrimination deemed to be unlawful under the PHRA.

Harrison v. Health Network Labs. Ltd. P'ships , ––– Pa. ––––, 216 A.3d 219 (2019) (per curiam ). Where the appeal arises from an order sustaining preliminary objections due to legal insufficiency of the complaint, our well-settled standard of review is de novo . Commonwealth by Shapiro v. UPMC , ––– Pa. ––––, 208 A.3d 898, 908 (2019). For the purpose of evaluating the legal sufficiency of challenged pleading, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded, material, and relevant facts alleged in the complaint and every inference that is fairly deducible from those facts. Id . We must determine whether, on the facts averred, the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible; where a doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be sustained, this doubt should be resolved in favor of overruling it. Id . at 909.

II. Arguments

Health Network recognizes the PHRA prohibits employers who fall within the act from discriminating against their employees because of an employee's race, color, religious creed, ancestry, age, sex, national origin, or disability. See 43 P.S. §§ 954(a) - (b) (defining employer as, inter alia , a partnership or corporation "employing four or more persons within the Commonwealth"), 955(a) (describing unlawful discriminatory conduct). Health Network emphasizes, however, that the PHRA also prohibits covered employers from discriminating against any employee because the employee has opposed any practice made unlawful by the statute. See 43 P.S. § 955(d) ("It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice" for any employer "to discriminate in any manner against any individual because such individual has opposed any practice forbidden by this act ...."). Health Network argues the PHRA jurisprudence demonstrates the legislature's intent was for the PHRA to be the exclusive state law remedy for cases involving discrimination. In support of its claim, Health Network relies on Clay v. Advanced Comp. Applications, Inc. , 522 Pa. 86, 559 A.2d 917 (1989), and Weaver , as well as several federal district and circuit court cases.

Citing Clay , in which this Court held the PHRA's statutory remedy for discrimination claims precludes common law tort actions for wrongful discharge based upon discrimination, Health Network asserts the administrative procedures...