1. Persuasive Facts

Argument

1. Persuasive Facts On behalf of Bert Campbell:

Plaintiff Bert Campbell was a dedicated employee of the Tate Chemical Co. for over forty years. During that time he continually demonstrated immense loyalty to the company, and it was for this loyalty that Bert Campbell was eventually discharged, just months before he was to receive his pension.

Bert Campbell was hired by Tate Chemical in 1949. Although he started out as an unskilled laborer, because of his aspirations to improve his position, he spent his free time participating in various company training programs. In 1961, his superiors recognized Mr. Campbell's diligence and aptitude, promoting him to oversee the entire production process at Tate's Plant B. As manager of Plant B, Bert Campbell was expected to, and has, kept secret the nature of the chemical manufacturing process being used at the plant.

On behalf of Tate Chemical:

Plaintiff Bert Campbell was an at-will employee of the Tate Chemical Co. He spent most of his forty years of service in a position of trust; however, in 1991, in defiance of this trust, Bert Campbell disobeyed company orders and breached a secrecy agreement with his employer by unnecessarily revealing disparaging information before a legislative committee. Because of this breach of trust, Tate Chemical appropriately discharged Campbell.

Bert Campbell was hired by Tate in 1949. In an effort to give employees incentive to improve themselves, Tate offered various company training programs. Campbell took advantage of these training programs, but it was not until 13 years after his date of hire that Bert Campbell was promoted to a position of responsibility.

In this position of responsibility (manager of Tate's Plant B), Mr. Campbell was expected to strictly adhere to company regulations, one of which was not to disclose information of the processes that went on in Plant B.

2. Statement of Position

On behalf of Bert Campbell:

AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFULLY DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE FULFILLS HIS CIVIC DUTY BY OFFERING PERTINENT INFORMATION TO A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING THE ILLEGAL DUMPING OF TOXIC WASTE.

MIKA\BERT 1 AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE WHO DEFIES HIS SUPERIOR'S ORDERS AND DISPARAGES THE REPUTATION OF HIS EMPLOYER BY OFFERING INCONSEQUENTIAL INFORMATION TO A COMMITTEE IN CONDUCTING HEARING ON THE ILLEGAL DISPOSAL OF TOXIC WASTE STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EMPLOYEE WAS NOT SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY, AND WHEN THE EMPLOYER HAD NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN THE ILLEGAL DUMPING OF WASTES.

4. The Argument

A. Introduction (General Rule of Law)

Objective:

The general rule in Pennsylvania is that an at-will employee may be dismissed at any time for any reason. Geary v. United States Steel Corp., 319 A.2d 174, 176 (Pa. 1974). There are, however, two exceptions to this rule, and one of these exceptions is when the discharge violates a clear mandate of public policy. Id. at 180. In determining what violates a clear mandate of public policy courts decide first, whether a clear public policy (usually defined by statute) has been implicated by the discharge, and second, whether there was a legitimate reason for the termination. Cisco v. United Parcal Services, 476 A.2d 1340, 1343 (Pa. Super. 1984).

The general rule in Pennsylvania, and in the majority of jurisdictions, is that an at-will employee may be dismissed at any time for any reason. Geary v. United States Steel Corp., 319 A.2d 174, 176 (Pa. 1974). In order to preserve the freedoms associated with this type of employment arrangement, the courts have found exceptions to the general rule only in limited circumstances. Id. at 180. One of these situations is when the discharge violates a clear mandate of public policy, usually defined by a statute that would prohibit such a discharge. Field v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 565 A.2d 1170, 1171 (Pa. Super. 1990). Further, an at-will employee who demonstrates his discharge has some conceivable relationship to a recognized public policy may still be discharged when the employer has a legitimate reason for doing so. Id. at 1172. Given that Bert Campbell's discharge was not prohibited by statute and Tate discharged him to protect the reputation of the company, Bert Campbell's cause of action should not succeed.

On behalf of Bert Campbell:

The general rule in Pennsylvania is that an at-will employee may not be discharged when that discharge violates a public policy. Geary v. United States Steel Corp., 319 A.2d 174, 176 (Pa. 1974). A discharge in violation of public policy, in the view of the Pennsylvania courts, encompasses those situations when an employee is terminated after fulfilling a duty that “strikes at the core of the hearts of all citizens” and is discharged for no legitimate reason. Rinehimer v. Luzerne County Comm. College, 539 A.2d 1298, 1300 (Pa. Super. 1988). Because Bert Campbell was discharged for fulfilling his civic duty of testifying before a committee investigating toxic waste, his cause of action should be deemed in violation of a clear public policy.

MIKA\BERT 2 B. The Body of the Argument after the introduction

Objective: (cites omitted and written from the perspective of Tate's law clerk; only one cased used as a demonstration rather than multiple cases)

In Geary, the Pennsylvania courts first recognized that, in limited circumstances, an employer's right to discharge at any time would not be unfettered; however, in the case of a salesman who repeatedly voiced his concerns about a product he felt to be defective, the court held no exception would be made. In reaching their decision, the court focused on the fact that, as a salesman, the plaintiff likely did not possess the qualifications that would enable him to make safety judgments. Moreover, the court reasoned the defendant's action of repeatedly condemning the product made him a nuisance employee that the defendant had a legitimate reason to terminate.

Based on the law, and most specifically Geary, Tate may raise several arguments. Tate may argue that Campbell implicated no public policy by his testimony, and moreover, that he was legitimately discharged as a nuisance. Like the plaintiff in Geary, Campbell was not in a position to present expert testimony on dioxin dumping, and, in fact, became a security risk to the company by appearing before the committee. Although Campbell may attempt to distinguish Geary by stating that he was an expert in environmental hazards, Tate should maintain that the dioxin incident of 1966 was very far removed from the dioxin dumping problem of 1991. Furthermore, although Campbell is likely to argue that his testimony caused nothing that might be construed as a security problem, Tate should assert that whenever a company engages in the types of sensitive government contracts within which Tate engages, any disobeying of a company order amounts to a breach of trust warranting a discharge.

Several other cases define how Pennsylvania courts deal with wrongful discharge causes of action. As an example, in the case of Reuther, the court held….

Persuasive, on behalf of Tate Chemical: (cites omitted)

Several cases support the position that Tate Chemical was justified in its actions. Most specifically, in Geary, the Pennsylvania court held that an exception to the at-will doctrine would be made only when a clear mandate of public policy was violated by the discharge. In finding no such exception existed for a salesman who repeatedly voiced his concerns about a product he felt was defective, the court emphasized that good intentions were not enough to warrant a cause of action that had no statutory basis. The court also emphasized Geary's failure to heed the orders of his supervisors as giving the company a legitimate reason to discharge him.

The holding in Geary demonstrates why this court should consider Tate’s actions legal and justified. Similar to the plaintiff in Geary, Campbell's discharge has implicated no clear public policy. Like in Geary there is no statutory prohibition for discharging an employee who disobeys his superior's orders in the name of good intentions. Moreover, Campbell had no unique qualifications that would make him such a necessity to hearings on the illegal disposal of toxic waste.

Geary is just the first in a long line of cases that demonstrate the court's reluctance to find

MIKA\BERT 3 exceptions to the at-will doctrine. In Reuther the Pennsylvania court held an exception to the general rule only when it was established that the plaintiff was discharged for fulfilling a specific statutory duty--namely, serving on a jury.

This was not the situation in the case of Bert Campbell.

Persuasive on behalf of Bert Campbell (cites omitted):

Several cases support the position that Tate Chemical illegally discharged Campbell. As an example in Geary, the Pennsylvania courts first recognized that the at-will doctrine was not absolute, and acknowledged what has been labeled the public policy exception. The Geary court left the definition of a clear public policy as somewhat open ended, but acknowledged that there were instances where an employer might abuse its power to hire and fire at-will. Bert Campbell's situation falls into the category of exactly what the Geary court was trying to prohibit--the retaliatory discharge of employees who seek to fulfill civic duties.

In Geary the court found no cause of action existed for an individual who became troublesome to his employers by continuously complaining about the safety of a product he was selling. The court highlighted Geary's lack of expertise and his meddlesome nature. This was not true of Bert Campbell. Campbell was an expert solicited to testify at the legislative environmental hearings; moreover, unlike Geary he was disclosing information on what was an already known serious health risk. Given the nature of the proceedings and the level of expertise Campbell possessed, his testifying deserves the utmost protection.

Geary is just the first in a long line of cases that demonstrates the court's willingness to protect employees who are discharged after fulfilling civic duties. In Reuther the Pennsylvania court held an at-will employee who was fired after fulfilling his duty to testify on a jury was unjustly discharged. The court emphasized the unfairness of allowing employers to use the general rule of at-will employment to shield themselves from reprehensible civic conduct.

To violate Bert Campbell's discharge would be similarly unfair....

5. A note on ethics:

It is a requirement of the Canon of Ethics that an attorney not "hide" information that is adverse to his/her position. That means that you may not leave a case out of a brief simply because it goes against you. In a sense, it also means (and I hope this is a given), that you may not lie about the holding of a case or misquote a case so it reflects your side.

What do you do about adverse case law?

You may do one out of two things. First, you may distinguish a case; that is, you give the summary of the case, adverse holding and all, and then convey to your reader the differences between that case and your own. Secondly (the preferred method), you "minimize" the case, or rather, interpret it to your favor.

This is skill that is done to perfection by only the best of the best writers. It necessitates both an ability to see any case from your client's point of view, and an ability to communicate that to the reader. The only general rule of thumb when doing so is, perhaps, in adverse case law,

MIKA\BERT 4 policy should be emphasized, while in supportive case law, specific fact analogies should be made.

6. In conclusion:

In some ways argument writing is much easier than memo writing because it not only allows the personality of the writer to emerge, but it doesn't necessitate such a dry rendering of every conceivable legal repercussion of a case. Since the emphasis is on persuasion, it allows the writer to have more freedom in choosing which parts of which cases are beneficial in making a point. That is not to say that accurate description of the law may be left out, nor may the rules of grammar be discarded. That is to say that there is quite a bit more stylistic freedom than in a memo.

MIKA\BERT 5