the public policy of the Commonwealth, we examine the precedent wit 1363 (3rd Cir.1979) (applying Pennsylvania law and finding a public policy violation for firing a worker for refusing to submit to a polygraph test, when a statute forbid such testing). Where the termination has not implicated a clear mandate of public policy, this Court and the Superior Court have not permitted a common law cause of action for wrongful discharge. See McLaughlin, 561 Pa. 307, 750 A.2d 283 (finding that an at-will employee did not state a claim for wrongful discharge under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine based solely upon alleged retaliatory termination of her employment in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act); Tourville, 353 Pa.Super. 53, 508 A.2d 1263 (<HOLDING>); Martin, 354 Pa.Super. 199, 511 A.2d 830
holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy holding that discharge of employee to avoid paying commissions on future transactions did not violate clear mandate of public policy holding that the discharge of an employee hospitalized for illness did not violate public policy 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 discharge of employee for having distributed expired drugs at employers direction did not violate clear mandate of public policy because the discharge implicated only the private interests of the parties