to declare pronouncements of public policy is sharply restricted. Mamlin v. Genoe (City of Philadelphia Police Beneficiary Ass’n), 340 Pa. 320, 17 A.2d 407, 409 (1941). Rather, it is for the legislature to formulate the public policies of the Commonwealth. The right of a court to declare what is or is not in accord with public policy exists “only when a given policy is so obviously for or against public health, safety, morals, or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it.” Mamlin, 17 A.2d at 409. Only in the clearest of cases may a court make public policy the basis of its decision. Id. To dete g no cause of action where an employee was discharged in retaliation for placing an advertisement with a competing paper); Gillespie, 355 Pa.Super. 362, 513 A.2d 471 (<HOLDING>); McCartney v. Meadowview Manor, Inc., 353
holding that an employee was wrongfully discharged for refusing to submit to a polygraph test 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 holding that an atwill employee may not be discharged for refusal to violate the law holding that an employee may be discharged as a result of an accusation of criminal behavior holding that an assault that occurred immediately after the employee was discharged was in the course of the employment