## Facts

- John Novosel worked for Nationwide Insurance Company from 1966 until his termination on November 18, 1981, advancing without prior discipline and serving as a district claims manager.
- Nationwide circulated a memorandum urging employees to participate in a lobbying campaign supporting Pennsylvania House Bill 1285 (the “No-Fault Reform Act”) by collecting signatures on coupons tied to a pro-reform committee.
- Novosel alleged he refused to participate and privately opposed the company’s political position.
- Novosel alleged Nationwide discharged him solely because of his refusal and privately stated opposition.

## Issues

1. Whether Pennsylvania’s public-policy exception to employment at will permits a tort claim for wrongful discharge when an employee is terminated for refusing to engage in employer-directed political lobbying and for privately opposing the employer’s political stance.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged an enforceable implied contract for continued long-term employment conditioned on satisfactory performance, sufficient to overcome the at-will presumption.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit held that the complaint stated a plausible wrongful-discharge claim under Pennsylvania’s public-policy exception and that dismissal at the pleading stage was error.
- The court vacated the dismissal as to the tort claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the implied-contract claim, declining to infer long-term job security from the allegations.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania law, employment for an indefinite term is generally terminable at will, subject to a narrow exception for discharges that contravene a clear mandate of public policy.
- Public policy may be informed by constitutional values even when constitutional provisions do not directly apply to private employers.
- Termination based on an employee’s refusal to engage in political activity for an employer, or based on the employee’s private political expression or association, can implicate rights held as a citizen and may support a wrongful-discharge claim.
- Courts are reluctant to infer implied job-security contracts in at-will employment absent specific promises, definite terms, or other facts sufficient to rebut the at-will presumption.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Novosel to proceed on a tort theory that firing an at-will employee for refusing employer-mandated lobbying and for private political opposition may violate Pennsylvania public policy, while rejecting an implied-contract theory of long-term employment based on satisfactory performance.


Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 721 F.2d 894 (3d Cir. 1983)