appellant was wrongfully terminated that terminations was pretextual with that they six set of facts in mind specifically to see what i think is the seminal question in the seminal question was asked of mr levy representing appellant in at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment was asked straight away and unfortunately i must concede it was not adequately answered the question this century was what is the underlying statutory work constitutional violation  card terms some wrongful termination he was an employee that well there's no dispute about that and under california law an employer will be terminated for any reason or no reason except for  he were a member of a protected class he would fire because of his race or religion or sexual orientation and there is no nothing in the record that would indicate that he was part of a protected class or there was any public policy why he couldn't be terminated and what's the public policy that's precisely what i think i can supply right here in that i think  of litigation adversarial litigation against the appellant employees unions and i think reviewing the record in totality the terminations was in retaliation for the parents since and there is i think until york your claim is based on what an equal protection clause or the substantive due process that somehow infringing upon familial relationships no not and not not precisely my contention is that the employer is retaliating appearance use of the courts to engage in commercial disputes rightly but he's an employee at will he can be filed for fire for any or for no reason except for a very narrow band of things that will violate public policy which which judge bartol has articulated well so now i'm trying i'm trying to fit your argument into the framework that judge bartol has applied you we that we're used to looking for some kind of constitutional or statutory  value that rises to the level of public policy that would make it utterly unjust and contrary to to our values too to permit so what so what's going on here that rises to that level the lack of resolution in its favor of underlying litigation is between the bank and mom and dad the bank is retaliating against the their employee who is the son of the people that they are but what you're really saying is that if i have an employee and at will and i decide i don't like the employee's parents for whatever reason and then i fire the employee because i don't like the employee's parents that that would be against public policy under california law if it's just i don't like the employee's parents because i don't like the way they dress i think that that's a public open and disposition and i think that the that would be permissible i believe that would be permissible but if the underlying rational sued long before while i understand but the point is you're making a distinction between whether the parents have sued or not so if you don't like the parents and they haven't sued you that's fine if the parents have sued you then you can't fire the the child i think that that is true if as the record of your support th really is the reason and here it was an investigation conducted he what the employee was apparently well respected employee and the bank having assumed prior debts or the bank but they undertook an investigation and there is some evidence in the record in the course of the investigation that investigator make a decision choose between your parents your family and your career i know your time is short i have a question about the defamation campaign now the only allegedly death the family tory statement was the statement that the bank sent to finra about the terminations on the you five forms correct correct all right now if in fact regulatory body that's in compas within section forty seven b the california civil code there's an absolute privilege is there not i think the privileges qualify the forty seven you know i'm talking if it comes under forty seven b if you wired to file they were and they are required to file any time the bank terminate an employee the bank is required to follow a file a on the bank the bank and or its investigators prepared a report to be filed with the owner that said we're terminating him we believe that he may have been involved with family members of a malicious retaliate where does it say that in the statute i think that it says other sections of the statute talk about malice forty seven they doesn't now the words if i report somebody say tell the police that somebody rob the store down the street and i'm doing a maliciously i know that darn right well the person didn't do it that is absolutely privilege california statute absolutely well then why is it different in this case i think that it's different in this case because the report was filed for the purpose of with tech thing the bank from potential consequences i will dress by the order of the claims that are at issue here the first one being the first claim for the wrongful termination violation of public policy i think the district court did get the ruling correct namely that as the plan has just stated they have not so far then if i had any statutory or costly to tional basis that supports a public policy claim it seems what what they are trying to do is to litigate the their claims brought by the parents against j p morgan chase bank i think what's notable here is that plaintive actually had never conducted any form of discovery whether it be the depositions of any of that this is makers or elsewhere they were not able to second guess why the decisions were made or that any of claim there were a number of hurdles that the opponents were not able to overcome the first being that plaintive had made a missions in deposition that there was no false statement of fact in fact he testified that it was merely the opinion of j p morgan chase bank regarding the reasons for his terminations as well as the statements made to finish that's the key point this is the very first element that they cannot even overcome aside from that the communications are privileged the communications of the people that were involved or knew about the reasons for the terminations and the investigation at j p morgan chase bank because the sort of people that were human resources his direct managers as it's the subject of the defamation claim understood you are i believe i thought that it at least based on the in their opposition to the summary judgment as well as the allegations in the pleading they had mentioned that there were now is there any evidence that that was the purpose of filing the you five or was it simply a notice that had to be given purpose was to target or a in the investigation or remedy something so we do believe that forty seven b does apply namely based on the declaration of adam schultz who is the person that of the statement defend right now whenever there is a registered agent of a bank which in this case mr g m was a register agent and there is happens to be its subsequent termination the banking institutions have an obligation showing of recklessness and that's the key here that the statements that's been attributed to through the finra statement was that he was terminated because he was unable to fully substantiate how real estate property was transferred to him again they've made no showing that there was any recklessness that there was no recklessness by adam's folds in providing that statement that was an accurate statement he relied solely on the investigation that was provided to him and he there's nothing worth what worried he did out of any reckless disregard of mr g and he didn't even know mr g and on top of that i still go back to the fact that part of the elements of defamation is that he has to so damages and based on the undisputed material facts starting with undisputed fact number thirty seven through forty three mr g and testified that he's not aware of anybody that had talked to damages but if we concede that forty seven c is the appropriate provision of law that applies then the standard of malice would initiation of an investigation of this simply based on the acts of his parents the alleged threat to choose between your family and your career that and number of other factors it's defamation per se and in hundred subs than of california law we permit recovery for defamation per se without any evidence of special damages that's