Workplace Tug-of War: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Weighs Competing Interests with New Cause of Action to Protect At-Will Employees From Third-Party Interference in Salsberg v. Mann

Abstract

This note examines the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Salsberg v. Mann and its recognition of a cause of action for tortious interference with an at-will employment relationship by a third party. The author argues that extending tortious interference claims to at-will employees appropriately balances employer and employee interests by providing employees with a limited avenue for relief when a third party improperly causes the termination of an employment relationship. Through a doctrinal analysis of the at-will employment doctrine, the Restatement (Second) of Torts provisions governing intentional interference with contractual relations, the Restatement (Second) of Agency scope-of-employment factors, and Pennsylvania precedent, the note traces the development of tortious interference claims in both Pennsylvania and other jurisdictions. The author contends that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court correctly recognized the cause of action because at-will employees possess a protectable interest in the continuation of their employment relationship free from outside interference.The note further argues, however, that the court’s adoption of the Restatement balancing tests imposes an excessively burdensome and highly subjective standard for plaintiffs seeking to establish that a supervisor or coworker acted as a third party rather than as an agent of the employer. By requiring plaintiffs to prove that a defendant acted entirely outside the employer’s interests, the framework threatens to make successful recovery exceedingly rare and may undermine the practical value of the newly recognized cause of action. The author concludes that Pennsylvania courts should replace the existing balancing approach with a more objective burden-shifting framework that presumes employees act in the employer’s interests unless a plaintiff can demonstrate, through clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant primarily acted contrary to those interests. Such an approach would better protect employees from improper interference while preserving the core principles of the at-will employment doctrine.[This abstract was written by Microsoft Copilot, a generative artificial intelligence.]