Response to the questions regarding: Rodgers v. Lorenz - 25 A.3d 1229 Pa.Super. (2011).The case is widely available online. Answer each question thoroughly in plain language.
1. Explain the Pennsylvania Superior Court's ruling. Does it reinstate the plaintiff's employment at Carload Express?
2. If your answer for question 1 was "no," what must the plaintiff still prove, when his case is reconsidered by the trial judge?
3. Did the plaintiff prove that the Crime Victims' Employment Protection Act was preempted by the Worker's Compensation Act in this case?
4. The plaintiff raises the following question: When the Crime Victims' Employment Protection Act was written, did the Legislature intend to protect crime victims who have not yet attended their hearings, from threats, coercion, and loss of employment? To what conclusion did the court arrive in its final opinion?
5. Does the court's decision in this case suggest a liberalization of an historic position on employment-at-will, or is the decision essentially limited to its particular facts?