Pennsylvania, looking to our own Constitution, court decisions, and statutes promulgated by our legislature. McLaughlin, 750 A.2d at 288; Hall v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., 538 Pa. 337, 648 A.2d 755 (1994); Lurie v. Republican Alliance, 412 Pa. 61, 192 A.2d 367 (1963); Mamlin, 340 Pa. 320,17 A.2d 407. Following Geary, public policy exceptions to at-will employment have been recognized where the wrongful discharge claims have involved infringements on statutory and constitutional rights. These cases demonstrate Pennsylvania’s traditional view that exceptions to at-will employment should be few and carefully sculpted so a r. 28, 386 A.2d 119 (1978) (concluding that employee cannot be discharged for serving on a jury). See also Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 721 F.2d 894, 898 (3d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Perks v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 611
holding that there was no violation of a clear mandate of public policy where an employee was discharged for attempting to curtail the misuse of public tax revenues holding that an atwill employee may not be discharged for refusal to violate the law holding that termination of an employee for refusing employees request to engage in political lobbying activities violates clear mandate of public policy under pennsylvania law holding that public policy was violated where the employee was discharged for refusal to participate in a lobbying effort holding that an atwill employee can be discharged for any reason or no reason unless employee is discharged for reasons that contravene a clear mandate of public policy