policy. However, the Court concluded that no public policy was implicated in Geary’s termination. Subsequently, in Shick v. Shirey, 552 Pa. 590, 716 A.2d 1231 (1998), the Supreme Court first announced a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. Therein, the Court held that, in Pennsylvania, an at-will employee asserts a viable common law cause of action for wrongful discharge when the employee maintains that he was fired because he exercised his statutory right to file a workers’ compensation claim. Our High Court ruled that the lawsuit could be brought since terminating an employee for exercising his or her legal right to workers’ .compensation violated Pennsylvania public policy. See also Bothrock v. Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc., 584 Pa. 297, 883 A.2d 511. (2005) (<HOLDING>); Highhouse v. Avery Transportation, 443
holding that it violates publicpolicy for a father to be dismissed for failing to prevent his son from obtaining workers compensation benefits holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act holding public policy prohibited employer from discharging employee in retaliation for seeking workers compensation benefits holding that pursuant to statute unemployment benefits must be offset against workers compensation payments recognizing a tort action when employee was dismissed for filing a workers compensation claim