February 2001

In a recent case, Hogrelius v. First Union Bank, the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County struck yet another blow to the strong presumption of at-will employment in Pennsylvania. In Hogrelius, the plaintiff-employee worked at a First Union Bank branch in New Jersey as a full time teller.

Because the employee's family contemplated a temporary move to the Lehigh Valley area so that her daughter could attend school there, the employee asked her supervisor if she could transfer to a full time position at one of the Bank's branches in the Lehigh Valley. The employee was told that such a transfer would be "no problem." The employee then sold her house and purchased a townhouse in the Lehigh Valley. The employee was later informed, however, that First Union had no full time positions available in the Lehigh Valley. The employee then sued the Bank and the Bank argued that she was an at-will employee and, as such, was not guaranteed any definite length of employment.

However, there is a well known exception to at-will employment where employees give sufficient additional consideration to employers. In that situation, the courts will guarantee the employee, at the very least, a reasonable length of employment. Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing exception to the at-will doctrine, the employee in Hogrelius contended that she gave sufficient additional consideration to the Bank because she made the decision to move to the Lehigh Valley area based upon its promise that a full time job in the Lehigh Valley would be "no problem."

Citing Pennsylvania Superior Court cases holding that there is sufficient additional consideration where employees gave up employment, uprooted their families, and sold their homes to take positions with a new employer, the Common Pleas Court held in favor of the employee on First Union's motion to dismiss the case prior to trial. Specifically, the Court held that "evidence that an employee sold their home, moved to a new home, and took a new position based on a promise of employment is sufficient evidence of additional consideration."

While the Court's holding, in and of itself, may be nothing new to employment lawyers, it is particularly troubling in light of the fact that the employee and her family intended to move to the Lehigh Valley regardless of the Bank's response to her question as to whether there was full time work available. As a defense lawyer, I would argue that the employee did not rely on the Bank's promise of full time work when making her decision to move; rather, she relied on the fact that her daughter wished to attend school in the Lehigh Valley area.

Therefore, in my opinion, the plaintiff-employee in Hogrelius did not give sufficient additional consideration to remove her from at-will employment and, accordingly, her lawsuit against the Bank should have been dismissed.