when she blew in effect blew a non statutory whistle on the way her boss john callahan was requiring her to create unsafe aircraft operations manuals evidence shows that the manuals sometimes had what's called changed our software problems that would erase text cover up text things like that and sometimes when they were printed  black streaks across them making them not possible to read not only that my client complained about how she and her crew needed training in jumps charge with certain fancy navigation charts they're used by the airlines on these aircraft operations manuals are over six hundred pages long and my client noted there is hundreds of errors in them sometimes when they were edited my client made several complaints to her  boss strike that to the h r manager susan prince and later on david hewitt employee relations manager that she was having problems with callahan because the way she was of interfering with their work in creating accurate aircraft operations manuals which started out as an attempt to actually help the company do its job better and create these safe manuals these the manuals are regulated  read you've got a disaster waiting to happen any evidence that any of the manuals had incorrect information in them as are all the complaints just to the way they were printed or typ examples you'd have a change in the checklist ok there a while would have for example maybe weight and balance information for the r j one hundred and forty five and that way you know the manufacturer might say you know we we were changing some  cation the manual has to be changed and the software would have to make changes to all the manuals simultaneously that's what the change of our software does and the problem was my client was complaining that text was disappearing out of these manually select tronic versions of these manuals and being overwritten now the might my client was responsible for getting conyers aircraft a year j one hundred and forty five dollars certified for its flights because she managed to get these a a whims put on board planes after they proved after the f a a approved them but but the fact of matter is she was disciplined for making complaints about the boss when she complained about these problems i've cited in the case vs high com it's clear that public policy to a highway is violated when you fire an employee in aviation business who's blowing a non statutory whistle about how aircraft was constantly talking about her to other koan clearly in the workplace that's disputed your honor those accusations came in after my client made her complaints there was three major complaints and e mails expressing safety concerns that the district court currently skipped over in its in its order dismissing the case my client's last safety didn't have anything to do with safety have been is i understand it the safety issues or the change bar issue and the black streaks in the mail and the black streaks on the manual she admit it well that was fixed after i printed three pages so we're really talking about change buyers and then there's a whole bunch of other stuff that's like workplace disagreement which i have no idea who you know the character of these people or their relationship but it all seems to be workplace relationships rather than safety concerns your honor i disagree with that because what they did was they took my client making complaints about the boss not training them causing change bar problems causing black streaks  know undermining my client's work taking credit for work she did and for problems she fixed all these things go to my client saying look i've got a supervisor is undermining my work and she's undermining company safety and we have to do our job with safety here and in an effort to defend itself after she made these complaints in january after she offered to resign over it and then didn't because she just decided to stand up for rights connie said you say anything about the boss again in that january th letter of instruction inaction or whatever they call it we're going to fire you the problem is my client's being jack she can't make any safety complaints and if that's the case public policy can never be vindicated because she's she's being censored and this is the problem with this case is that we got a jury trial question because we want to know it has to be examined as to what is their definition of insubordination criticizing the boss for doing something unsafe and by saying oh no you're talking about all these other people well that's what they did after they got in trouble with her making the complaints i was just going to ask can we talk about the public policy exception or what is it that you think i understand that you resist the demers health test but i'm not sure danger it has nothing to do and me with with lots of greeley type claims what if someone got a call at eight o'clock in the morning in a boss's on the phone and says you know don't come into work today you're fired because they heard you sounds like you don't think ohio the legislature has extended sufficient protection to the sorts of claims that you think it should protect i don't know how we're supposed to wear a federal court sitting in diversity so you help that public apology tour claim is not does not to be dependent on a statute that regulates employment relations ok does not have to parallel the whistleblower statue whistleblower statute is st fact specific situations that are not involved in every greeley case and if you say that really claims they are after you based on statutes and follow the whistleblower policy that defies culture because a house print court codes that that's not the case this court expressly said in that case you do not have to follow the whistleblower statute there are apples and oranges are two different things the public policy it's being vindicated is a sin is the requirement that the the plaintiff be allowed to make a complaint about an issue like workplace safety not get fired for it it may be a whistleblower type case it may not be but there's never been a case decided by the house spring court that said you've got to parallel the whistleblower statute the standard is the from court put down in those cases what what the hale decision does is it tax on additional requirements that the high court in columbus never put into these cases really a situation when the employer didn't want to pay child support payments similarly burdened with that didn't even valving employment related statute in the supreme court of the house hey wait a minute here you can't fire somebody because employers are burdened by a statute that protects employees rights and that's what started this there's never been a case published where the high court has said you've got to mimic or follow the whistleblower statute it's and it's an unworkable standard another one for example they're taking on requirements that the columbus is never required i mean burden shifting doesn't work in these kinds of cases simply because the employer has to rebut each element of the four point collins  if i may just pick up on what my opposing counsel has said about the clarity element under ohio law i liked we discussed this in our brief to the court  there was a case of macallan case and ohio appellate court that actually reversed a trial court jury verdict that had granted eight hundred thousand dollars of damages to the plaintiffs in that case under the greeley public policy argument and they they reversed that specifically because of the public policy in in contention in that case not meeting the dean three part test but that wasn't the one that was vacated then the ohio supreme court did take a granted review of it and then vacated its decision to up is if indeed the ohio supreme court in columbus was going to address that element it had that opportunity to do so at that time but then with two or three years ago  correctly reflect a high law under the clarity element in other words that the three part dean test right so so your argument is i mean we're quite sitting in diversity we have to try to get out what ohio law is here how supreme court hasn't told us doesn't have a unified appellate court system so we have to figure out from district decision that doesn't bind other districts what's the right answer and your position is that the dean test is the right test because the ohio supreme court could have fixed it and didn't if it didn't like it that is one of my arguments yes that's the other argument is i do believe the dean court did correctly review as sas analyzed and come to its conclusion that indeed in order to have a real exception in employment at will is a doctor there are exceptions the exceptions are narrow and to have that such a narrow it's option it is correct under ohio law to say well you know what it's going to be a public policy wrongful discharge tort it should the conduct of the policy at issue should reflect the whistleblower statute and so then the deem you know three part test comes with those three elements and if you apply those three elements to the public policy at issue here in as the district court correctly found we we believe indeed that regulation does not meet either of those three elements it doesn't prohibit impose a duty on the employee to report any violations or doesn't prohibit any retaliation  and what if that just seems to me that that that those requirements are inconsistent with just about every wrongful you know public you know the from the greeley case forward the public policy it issue must clearly protect the public's interest yes but how do wasn't dig down early a duty to report under the right under a higher whistleblower you do need then the rd part and they're not do they don't all have to be met just at me one so the rd part then is does it put in the protect the public health and safety and that's i think how the how the dean part does correctly assess the clarity element under greeley ok let me just ask you a question is there a difference between the rd rd possibility of dean in the st requirement of the four requirements is there a difference between that and the clarity test i see where you're going and i have to agree that there does seem to be somewhat of a of a resemblance to both but under the dean test under the ohio courts that have followed the dean test and under this circuit's decisions that  rd element of the dean test is looked upon as much more closely than i believe what really has has done and the ohio appellate courts are following that i mean all of this all this court did was adopted a higher courts have been doing it and again when you look at the fact that we're talking about a narrow exception to the employment at will doctrine i believe imposing those digging down if you will in the clarity element digging down and seeing ok are any of these three elements in there that ensures that indeed there is going to be continuing employment it will not work with without gigantic exceptions which you would just eliminate the doctrine totally we do you do you lose if not now and this is what i know we said last time and causation in the breeze is not time a causation what the district court did below was say ok even if it's presumed causation element has been met let's go in and examine the next three elements because as we all know under the greeley test you need to the the appellant needs to meet all four elements so the district court went on to the jeopardy element and it found in reviewing the jeopardy element again applying six circuit law which we say we argue correctly applied ohio law the three elements to dig into if you will the jeopardy  element this district court said ok the st element that there is the clarity element meant we agree with that the district court said however the nd element whether the employees conduct fell within the scope of that policy that's where the district court disagreed with the the testimony and of herman's in the affidavits of her coworkers that her complaints were indeed not safety related they were not related to a public policy they were related to her own savior of her  vindictiveness if you will or dissatisfaction disrespect of her boss john callahan and therefore they were not brought in any kind of good faith to bring forth a safety issue instead they were brought in they began and it's very clear in looking at her own e mails that she wrote herself it began with her saying i don't trust my boss i don't respect my boss she's not qualified but it was all about the work i mean it was all about her actions relative to the manuals she wasn't saying i don't trust  because she's going to take our stuff she said i i don't trust the instructions that she's giving us because she doesn't know what she's doing that was her belief her subjective belief and she voiced it above ms callahans head over to the miss callahan superiors and then subsequently to h r and that was to was disagreed with she wasn't getting her point across to them they didn't agree with her and to zero in on safety i mean there's production of a manual and some of it might have to do it all kinds of different issues one could if you have to do a typeface it could have to do with a lot of different things but the safety complaints as far as i know are only the change bar issue and the black streak issue i believe it's only the change bar issue if you look at the safety complaint of the january th with where that was the e mail that said possible safety issue wasn't the case callahan had said sheet there was a different way to insert the change bars and they would show up and they indeed did show up what the appellant was arguing and in her incessant emails was there's another way to do it and i have a better way and if you really dig into those demanding e mails i think it does become apparent she was upset that callahan had not adopted her own way she felt she had a better way to improve or change also thought she had a safer way that she she was complaining that the way callahan was doing it had the potential for changes to disappear or for material to disappear and that what she had conveyed a number of times beginning early december and it just wasn't the case what does the law require that the complaint be correct no it doesn't but the law does require be brought opposing evidence in the record that that taking the record as a whole taking her complaints about callahan as a whole take in the disruption that she caused in her department as a whole one has to begin to question what was her intent was her intent truly to just to to bring forth an issue that would in fact impact the public health or safety or was it to justify her own job get back at her boss for not giving her the credit she felt was due to her well i mean it was pretty clear that she wasn't going to affect callahan's job so one could reasonably infer that it was really about those bars and she felt that the information has had a chance the possibility it was going to disappear but then she should have said that but she did again and again no not really no she was just saying i have a better way to do it there's a different way there's two ways to do things and it's one thing to consistently say well i've got the better way and this is the way we have to do it and when not just her boss but her bosses bosses and the f a a are all saying no no no this is this is good and she continues to to go at it while at the same time calling her boss a spoiled brat calling her boss all these names you say and the f a a the f a a tells them how to do it the f a a as evidence in the record shows  just in conrad who's the director of the pilot in charge of the entire department testified no no manual gets published without the f a a has final approval and there's a multi step review process and then i was wondering where the where the federal regulation was going to fit in here and where the where there was some federal enforcement mechanism so the argument is they went through all of these all these steps to create a manual in compliance with this with f a a regulations and ultimately it doesn't get into the pilot's hands unless the f a a goes through a review process and says yep these changed cars look good yep no black streaks yep we can read it yes it's got all that relevant information and so i mean it's i mean presumably it's safe i understand the f a a makes yeah but there is a check not only is there a check there's a multitude of checks and what the court must keep in mind is the the appellant was a word processor basically she has she had zero experience in aeronautics industry unlike her coworkers  particularly and she was making conclusions based on only her her role in this very very low the least the lowest if you will place on the totem pole she was simply told what to do by the  the subject matter expert who is a pilot typically to input literally just just like when if we were told secretary to input information and then it would be reviewed multiple times multiple times up the chain she was not involved in that also there were yearly and sometimes more than your early audits and she was never involved in any of those audits of the manuals she was she she was at as just on camera said at the bottom that's all she did input that and your job's done move on to the next manual and so for her to be coming forward as she did constantly that's where we believe the district court found correctly that wait a minute there's a point in time when these incessant complaints about the same issue for a month and a half and they get morphed into different ways in different reactions what's a good faith here what's going on here and then in between all of that there is a ton of disparagement that she had to engage in  and that's why we believe and as a judge did find even if cause ation maybe found ok we're going to still look at jeopardy even if jeopardy she found jeopardy was not found another loop nevertheless the judge went to the rd element  the causation didn't find causation for all the reasons that i've been discussing and also said well even if causation is there let's look at the overriding justification element and that was on fact that the  has no evidence whatsoever that the decision to terminate had anything to do with any safety complaint and therefore your honour's we believe that the judgment of the judge below is disappearing change bars this is aircraft operations manual i don't want it on my conscience if the pilots are looking through the six hundred dollars plus page he one forty five am for the changes of the don't see them all because the change bars disappeared out of the file because they're tied to paragraph tags and letting john dark determine if that is a safety risk we do have a safe correct way to add delete single change bars that i found for us or they will never disappear unless we purposely take them out i tried informing joan about this and she ignored it you three are pilots and can can determine if this is a safety risk but the she wasn't fired immediately after that letter right week later she rummest the fact the matter is my client made three main safety complaints and after she talked to david hewitt employee relations and at the end of december two thousand and sixteen he went out looking for something to get my client with to get her fired he went and talked to her coworkers and asked her what she saying about the boss doing these other things they went digging for information my client had had enough decided to consider resigning over it then came back and then they said keep disparaging the boss we're going to fire you and their definition disparagement is contesting how the boss runs the workplace and it's all about safety my clients not some mere word processor she's a computer scientist and the record shows you knows more about the framework maker software then anybody that she worked with and she's all the emails show she's trying to fix problems she's getting beaten down by the company every time she tries to do it and they say her standing up is insubordination when she's acting in the interest of aircraft and aircrew in the public safety what about your posing council's point that the supervisor had a different way she says there's a different way to done this correction for the bar here or is what i don't the record about that your honor my client came up with a better way to do something and that's what she's supposed to do that's what any employee supposed to do in a technical business i don't see how that buys them anything the fact matter is my client's job is not is there just is there evidence on the record about this alternative method yes your honor my client in the in the e mails unlike the one i just read my clients demonstrating better way to do something in the but i'm talking about the alternate method that the that the supervisor had what's in the record event that she didn't know what she was doing is what the record is she the comment about fixing problems that callahan caused all of that sounds like she's unhappy about her working conditions i don't know if ultimately the f a a is going to check it how is that a safety issue so maybe callahan's way it's cumbersome it's difficult for the employees and make some of the work week and all of that sounds like not a nice place to work but if tell him where it gets the job done so that safe even if it takes more time got a safety complaint at the workplace complete company policy on safety is that everybody that company has to contribute to safety my client did it in their holding it against her the idea that the boss likes the way to do something is great but she was making mistakes in my client blew non statutory whistle on it ok and she's not required to use the whistle blower statute i'm not sure the facts fit within the definition with or statute really has progeny never required anybody to parallel the whistleblower statute making these claims what is callahan's to jail leon was a supervisor and when i i even asked laura prince age our director who is more qualified her or my client to judge the issues here  and it was my client in the fact the matter is is that visor of what technical publications sure her background was she was a jet aircraft mechanic i understand is that you have to check double check triple check everything in aviation business in the fact that the f a a may eventually approve something doesn't mean you let it go and hope they'll catch it look what happened with the seven  bottom line is you can't just let stuff go open someone else will catch the error you have to fix this problem in the fact the matter is we have a question fix for trial about why my client was terminated insubordination which they can't define and i'm saying no the determining factors here if using o j i had to pull a policy toward clean jury instruction the determining factor is she made safety complaints they