The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has taken up a dispute over whether claims of employment discrimination under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law are preempted by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

Late last year in Harrison v. Health Network Laboratories, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas judge should not have ruled that former Health Network Laboratories manager Karen Harrison's claims that she was fired for passing along an employee's claims of discrimination under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law were preempted by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

“Here, on independent review, we are constrained to conclude that the learned trial court acknowledged, but failed to follow, the pertinent standard of review, and misapplied the applicable legal principles,” Superior Court Judge William H. Platt said in the court's Dec. 12 opinion.

“Specifically,” he continued, “without presenting support from pertinent controlling authority, the trial court accepted appellees' claim that appellant's whistleblower claim is pre-empted by the previously enacted Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. We recognize that a later enacted statute might conceivably pre-empt a previously enacted statute. But neither the trial court nor appellees explain why a statute enacted in 1955 could (or should) preempt another statute enacted over 30 years later.”

The case centered on an internal complaint employee Elizabeth Corkery made to Harrison that she was subjected to hostile working conditions by Arun Bhaskar, supervisor of the IT department.

Corkery claimed that Bhaskar, an Indian, treated non-Indian workers as inferiors and openly disparaged them in public, according to Platt's opinion. Corkery further claimed that her immediate supervisor did nothing about the situation.

Harrison passed the complaint along to the company's human resources officer and requested the appointment of an ombudsman, but nothing happened. Corkery later resigned and sent a letter to Harrison memorializing her claims. Harrison said she passed the letter along, but once again nothing happened, according to Platt.

One month later, according to Platt, Harrison was fired for using foul language at a corporate banquet. Harrison claimed she was really fired for bringing Corkery's allegations to light. Harrison filed suit, but it was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PHRA and failure to state a claim under the PWL.

However, Platt said that conclusion stood in “stark variance” of the meaning of the whistleblower law.

“As already noted, the Whistleblower Law prohibits discharge, threats, discrimination or retaliation against an employee for a good faith report of 'wrongdoing' by a public body or an instance of waste by any other employer as defined in the act,” Platt said. “Contrary to the conclusion of the trial court, appellant was not required to invoke the PHRL to pursue a retaliation claim under the PWL. Appellant plainly asserts the violation of the PHRL against Ms. Corkery, as the underlying wrongdoing, not as the act perpetrated against her (Ms. Harrison).”

In its June 27 order granting allocatur, the Supreme Court agreed to consider “whether the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ('PHRA'), including its requirement for exhaustion of remedial administrative procedures, provides the exclusive remedy for retaliation claims ostensibly brought under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law ('Whistleblower Law'), where the underlying basis for a Whistleblower Law retaliation claim is discrimination deemed to be unlawful under the PHRA.”

Steven Hoffman of Hoffman Hlavac & Easterly in Allentown represents the defendant and said in an emailed statement, “HNL is pleased that the Supreme Court has accepted our invitation to decide this important issue of Pennsylvania employment law. We look forward to advancing our argument before the Supreme Court.”

David Deratzian of Hahalis & Kounoupis in Bethlehem represents Harrison and could not be reached.