2 . Mr. Shipman and Mr. Harpster together operated the businesses of Harpster & Shipman Financial and Susquehanna Insurance Associates. Appellant/Employer is Mr. Harpster, individually and t/b/d/a Harper & Shipman Financial and Susquehanna Insurance Associates. 3 . As will be discussed infra, the at-will employment doctrine provides that absent a statutory or contractual provision to the contrary, the employer and employee each have the power to terminate the employment relationship for any or no reason. Geary v. United States Steel Corp., 456 Pa. 171, 319 A.2d 174, 176 (1974). Exceptions to this general rule have been recognized in only the most limited circum stances, where discharges of at-will employees would threaten clear mandates of public policy. See id., 319 A.2d at 180 (<HOLDING>). 4 . Although one basis of this Court's grant
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 discharge of employee to avoid paying commissions on future transactions did not violate clear mandate of 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 recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy 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