Co., Inc., 384 Pa.Super. 537, 559 A.2d 566 (dismantling of allegedly illegal surveillance equipment), appeal denied, 524 Pa. 628, 574 A.2d 70 (1989); McGonagle v. Union Fidelity Corp., 383 Pa.Super. 223, 556 A.2d 878 (refusal to mail insurance mailings that were allegedly in violation of state law), appeal denied, 525 Pa. 584, 575 A.2d 115 (1989). In each of these cases, however, the issue of whether the act alleged was indeed illegal was unclear; in light of this uncertainty, the courts felt that the judgement as to whether the act was illegal was in the hands of the employer and not the employee. Callahan, 541 F.Supp. at 563 ("employee complaints on matters generally entrusted to management” do not rise to the level of a clear mandate of public policy); Hineline, 559 A.2d at 569-70 (<HOLDING>); McGonagle, 556 A.2d at 885 ("when the act to
recognizing that takings cases are based on the proper exercise of statutory and regulatory authority holding that a principal is not hable for the actions of an agent when these actions exceed the agents authority and the thirdparty has knowledge that the agent does not have the authority asserted holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced holding that plaintiff had no authority or statutory right for actions proper course was to report actions to proper legal authority holding that denial of remand was proper where plaintiff failed to raise the proper objection