An Act providing for assumption of employment relationship, for terms of yearly employment contract, for prohibition on waivers or limitations of employment protections, for elements of wrongful disch . . .arge, for remedies for wrongful discharge and for probationary period of employment.
HB567, titled the Employment Clarification Act, would fundamentally change Pennsylvania employment law by replacing the default at-will employment doctrine with a presumption that most employment relationships are governed by a one-year contract that can be ended by the employer only for “good cause.” The bill defines “good cause” to include gross incompetence, loyalty breaches, workplace felonies, repeated handbook violations, financial exigency, certain criminal convictions, or other conditions making continued work impossible. It also requires employers to give advance written notice and a reason if they do not renew the yearly contract, and it allows employees to leave at any time.
The bill also limits the ability of employers and employees to waive these protections in advance, while still allowing later written modifications after employment begins. It creates a statutory framework for wrongful discharge, including retaliation for refusing to violate or reporting violations of public policy, termination without good cause, violations of written personnel policies, breach of contract, and constructive discharge. Remedies would include attorney fees, lost wages and fringe benefits for up to four years, relocation/job-search costs, interest tied to CPI adjustments, and punitive damages in cases of fraud, malice, or wanton disregard. The bill further allows a limited probationary period of up to three months, during which an employer may end employment with short notice and without civil liability under the new wrongful discharge provisions.
If enacted, HB567 would significantly alter Pennsylvania’s common law employment framework by statutorily overruling at-will employment for covered employers and employees. It would impose a default yearly contract model, define minimum job-security standards, restrict contractual waivers of those protections, and create new causes of action and remedies for wrongful discharge. The bill would affect employers with 15 or more employees, while excluding temporary or seasonal workers hired for six months or less, independent contractors, and certain non-employment relationships. It would also interact with existing federal and state anti-retaliation, discrimination, and public policy remedies without replacing them.
The bill text reflects a strongly pro-employee policy position, emphasizing bargaining inequality and the need for greater job security and certainty. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or bipartisan support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears designed to expand worker protections substantially and would likely be viewed favorably by labor advocates and more skeptically by employer groups.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s elimination of at-will employment, the presumption of a one-year contract, and the broad definition of wrongful discharge. Employers may object to the limits on termination flexibility, the invalidation of advance waivers, the potential exposure to back pay and punitive damages, and the administrative burden of notice and renewal requirements. Labor advocates would likely support the bill’s protections, but the probationary-period exception, the 15-employee threshold, and the exclusion of certain workers could also draw scrutiny as partial carveouts from the bill’s broader worker-protection goals.