PITTSBURGH – A carpet cleaning service accused of wrongfully terminating a former employee for his objection to working in areas where protective measures were not being practiced during the COVID-19 pandemic, counters that the plaintiff has not shown a public policy exception to his at-will employment status.
Zachary Holtzman of McKeesport first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on March 12 versus Cleaning Services Corporation (doing business as “ServiceMaster Carpet & Upholstery”), of Pitcairn.
According to the complaint, Holtzman was hired as a full-time area manager for the defendant near the end of 2019. During that time, the plaintiff resided with his elderly grandfather, for whom he provided care.
In March 2020, the suit explained that the COVID-19 pandemic took hold across the country, leading to Allegheny County issuing a stay-at-home order. Over the course of the pandemic, the stay-at-home orders were revised and the county began to let people return to work.
“Plaintiff advised defendant that because he cared for his elderly grandfather, who is an at-risk person for severe COVID-19, he could only work in situations where people could and did heed social distancing guidelines and wear appropriate PPE. In June of 2019, defendant sent plaintiff to the Jewish Community Center in the South Hills area of Pittsburgh,” the suit stated.
“On June 19, 2020, plaintiff observed that people were not social distancing and not wearing PPE in the immediate areas in which plaintiff worked. When plaintiff stated that he could not work where COVID-19 precautions were not being followed, defendant sent plaintiff home. Defendant thereafter terminated plaintiff’s employment.”
The plaintiff alleges this action was in violation of county and state policies pertaining to COVID-19.
“As a direct and proximate result of defendant’s wrongful conduct, plaintiff suffered from the following injuries and damages: Lost income and his financial security, damage to his reputation, embarrassment, shame and emotional distress, a diminution in enjoyment of his life, a diminishing ability to earn wages, pain and suffering and attorney’s fees and costs,” per the suit.
UPDATE
The defendant filed preliminary objections on June 8, charging that the plaintiff did not illustrate a public policy exception to his at-will employment status, something which applies only in the “most limited” of circumstances.
“Pennsylvania follows the employment at-will doctrine, which means that employers are generally allowed to terminate employment with or without cause absent statutory or contractual authority to the contrary. Pennsylvania courts have held that there is a public policy exception to this rule which prohibits employers from terminating employees for reasons that violate a clear mandate of public policy,” the objections stated.
“Holtzman’s only allegations of a public policy violation are that he observed individuals in the public not social distancing and not wearing PPE in the areas where Holtzman was allegedly working – which do not amount to any affirmative actions on the part of his employer to violate any public policy.’ Neither Pennsylvania nor Allegheny County have ever established a public policy exception making an employer responsible for the actions of the general public. Furthermore, neither Pennsylvania nor Allegheny County have established a public policy exception based upon the allegations set forth in Holtzman’s complaint.”
Rather, the defendant argues that the public policy exception requested by Holtzman would have disastrous effects upon every drug store, grocery store, restaurant, and commercial cleaning service in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
“Commercial cleaning services have proved essential in protecting the health and well-being of the Commonwealth and its citizens throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. ServiceMaster had no legal duty to continue to employ Holtzman based on any public policy exception, and Holtzman’s complaint avers no statutory or contractual authority to the contrary to the presumption of employment-at-will,” the objections said.
“As his complaint fails to implicate any public policy exception to Pennsylvania’s at-will employment doctrine, Holtzman’s complaint cannot go forward. Accordingly, ServiceMaster’s preliminary objections should be sustained, and Holtzman’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.”
For a count of wrongful termination in violation of state public policy, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $35,000, plus interest and costs.
The plaintiff is represented by David M. Kobylinski and Peter T. Kobylinski of Praetorian Law Group, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Richard B. Sandow and Marc E. Casper Jr. of Jones Cregg Creehan & Gerace, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-21-002210
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com