Legal Opinion

Diberardinis-Mason v. Super Fresh

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided April 14, 2000No. CIV. A. 99-3410PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

DALZELL, District Judge.

We must here interpret a narrow exception to Pennsylvania’s strong commitment to the employment-at-will doctrine. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the exception does not apply and will enter summary judgment in favor of defendant Super Fresh.

Facts

This action, for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and loss of consortium, 1 arises out of Super Fresh’s July 3, 1997 decision to fire plaintiff Carol A. Diberardinis-Mason (“Mason”). The facts are largely undisputed.

Super Fresh hired Mason as a pharmacist on February 24, 1997, after she…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  4. San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  5. Geary v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Tanay v. Encore Healthcare, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. Phillips v. St. Mary Regional Medical CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  3. Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2013
  4. NITKIN v. MAIN LINE HEALTHDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2021
  5. PAINADATH v. GOOD SHEPHERD PENN PARTNERSDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2023

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API