action is one of first impression. Federal field preemption may be inferred where “the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153, 102 S.Ct. 3014, 73 L.Ed.2d 664 (1982) (citation omitted). See also De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 357, 96 S.Ct. 933, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 (1976). Preemption occurs where a state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Da C.C.A.N. 5266, 5299 (stating Congress modeled Section 3730(h) in part after the whistleblower provision of the Toxic Substances Control .Act), and Braun v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 635 F.Supp. 75, 80 (E.D.Pa.1986) (<HOLDING>). The Court concludes federal preemption of
holding that a wrongful discharge claim is not available given the availability of title yii remedies recognizing tort of wrongful discharge holding that the remedies are exclusive holding the statutory remedies for whistleblowers under the toxic substances control act 15 usc  2622 were exclusive and no state wrongful discharge claim could be maintained recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge