584 Pa. 297, 883 A.2d 511 (2005), we found that the same public policy prohibited the termination of an employee for declining to compel a subordinate employee not to seek workers’ compensation. These cases demonstrate that the strong presumption of all non-contractual employment relations is at-will. An employee may bring a cause of action for a termination of that relationship only in the most limited circumstances, where the termination implicates a clear mandate of public policy. In our judicial system, the power of the cou er. 34, 508 A.2d 1254 (1986) (finding no cause of action where an employee of a nursing home was discharged because she applied to the state for a license to run a competing facility); Rossi v. Pennsylvania State University, 340 Pa.Super. 39, 489 A.2d 828 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Cisco v. United Parcel Services, Inc., 328
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 federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy holding that an employee has no right of action against an employer for wrongful discharge where no clear mandate of public policy is violated thereby 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