and it involves principles that may be abstract but they're very important to remember standing of idaho law specifically with respect to public policy all really that's involved in this case his freedom of speach but we don't rely on any authority it provides for freedom of speech as we know it in the respect to at least make broad success nerd's i tell you that is because my crime at the time that these events happened was in a very precarious position it had to compete against foreign companies engineering was brilliant enough because if you could produce if you could engineer these things so well that you were far enough ahead off that that labor differential you could survive t individuals had asked management about this information but mr hess and another director mr smith believe that management was not responding the way the information was valid to simply showing irritation and dismissing the cannot rely on information given to him by management if they believe that the information is and is it's not reasonable to rely on so they get information that makes it look like something is at the drug or vein of this company run but they didn't want to go there because they didn't want to rock the boat they did they were in a precarious position so mr hastert went to his to tyler lara heather laurie was no longer the working for the company but he was under a in my contract can be proved by all of the circumstances taken together including faction state there is in the record and of abundance of evidence that it was widely understood it  that there was a quote open door policy that anybody could discuss with anyone operating results good or bad but let's put all that evidence aside from and talk about discuss with anyone how broadly in and to answer this question because this is this was this was the most important evidence and it's not the sky i raised it to the magistrate the district court and it's never been discussed in opinion ok so let me tell you a told the newspaper made public statements that basically directors can ask any employee for information any employee can give information without fear of retaliation and that in my mind was absolutely an admission it was made for purposes that was respect this litigation and i knew that we would get past summer judgment on the trail so we didn't get past it because i brought it up again and again and again and has never been discussed what the result is in your view that evidence your decision will be the first time it's been discussed in this case and opinion now in addition to that sir ok these people started out they had the typical at will employment in which micron encourage these people to have to crane storm to discuss operating results couldn't that with everyone else that job security is important my head of vigils could not point to a specific statement that was made and the district the same principles as enron and it is a case that in my judgment everything in enron happened because we had for promoting legal culture in which and his ideas for management in his struggle for management control micron that is the case that was consistently really give below but that is not the essence of this case the essence of this case  to that would be and indeed i think the district court itself was unfair what the answer to that would be and that's why they went through the analytical basis they did of adjudicating the public policy claim they basically gave gave the plain and here the benefit of the doubt as would would there be an exception to the under the public policy exception to trim a nation of at will employment and then proceeded to find that under no under the under speed of fa there was no way that there was sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could ever determine that he would fit within that exception in part that rationale was based on the and that upon dr this particular claimant but also i suspect in a line that employee officer of this company in conjunction with this plaintiff we're continuing to try to stir the pot to create trauma water within this company well that's what you say but it's clear that's what the evidence provides hands the information was sept sent mr hastert it was not the information mr hest allegedly had requested it now the only person who's testified that mr has even made such a response in this case is tot that's what it was there is very the evidence of the record of what was communicated is quite clear one can read it that's right it's right there as to exactly what the communication was that went from this just the final i'm  know anonymously president a position even it was just objective data and which it really couldn't be relied upon by anyone the statute on which mr stephano relies for the creation of a public policy exception here the way very briefly if i could that whole subject matter of the of the the alleged conversation that occurred that was reported on by the newspaper and then later amended by a correction to the report that does not that that information does not in this case create a tribal issue of fact i don't think there is any dispute that there was there was in fact something known as the open door policy just company and that was a policy it was our chicken lated not the the open door policy can be relied upon as a modification implied modification of the express written agreement of the parties   it seems like assuming for sake of argument that there is there is an open door policy and that an employee can communicate with to rector confidential or it may be a problem to give subjective comments about the president but on the other hand i'm not so i'm not certain that if there's an open door policy it shouldn't include s the answer to that when the answer is that's why the open door policy is not part of the terms of employment here it couldn't be a pure record of starting out with the signing of an expressed at will confident having at that at will covenant confirmed in written form just a few years later in one thousand nine hundred two having that at will cover not really emphasized in every republication of the employee handbook that there are no limitations on that on that the company's ability to terminate at will so we don't even have to go down that path and we're doing that with i don't know a lot as to what is the fact of these  to the level of debate as to whether this becomes a part of the terms of employment the met what met that says you have to apply a reasonable person standard to the facts and circumstances where they be sufficient to lead a reasonable person to conclude there's been some modification of the expressed terms of the remit here there was no evidence no evidence presented by mr final that would allow a court to conclude that there  employment this is the terms of your employment i don't think there's any reasonable basis to conclude that there's been any limitation on that i have noticed i'm out of my time i just want to very briefly to say to address the gentlemen with all due respect a little windmill who was a good friend of mine we were friends before is on the bench this is the first time i have felt like i approaching an open mind and i want to thank you for let me say this first of all everything that we have said has been consistently characterized you are right now to see at least the possibility of something being a smokescreen our case is not based on prior will it means absolutely nothing and every state that supports it will be ashamed of itself and it will be something that's where the law is going but we're not there yet so let's talk about where we are right now all that the law says is if those where presentations are made at the time that you get employment policy as a matter of law or in an agreement and still have an open door policy be like saying if a director comes by your office your door better be open tell them what directors but that doesn't mean we can't terminate you any time because we don't like the color your eyes or whatever i mean they don't they're not necessarily inconsistent logically and i don't think i could be missing something but that surely could mean for example that an employee could go to a director and say to the director i have all kinds of personal dirt about you know presidents on so unrelated it's not insubordination and you know requiring teamwork or whatever ok well first of all let me make sure we talk about your separate things here one is an implied contract where they have the right to do this and one is the public policy exception which i think is you know ok the public out what they put in here's his papers they followed the rest of his life was not that criticized the boss awesome didn't like it they said he described disclosed confidential information to outsiders in the high tech business that's about right saying that a judge was corrupt and took a bribe and that's what that's what's in his reg if he has to pursue provide his records to somebody that's what they said about ok now they just say well no it wasn't bad but but he gave them more than was a so the supreme court revoked just a shorter status that number one the conduct was protected by the public policy but more importantly it said there were if he did not have to go to an outside in contact by reporting that it involves an important public obligation or duty ok that's something porton to two things now if you look at thomas the dark of the false records is a criminal violation ok but the court didn't just say well he's protected by that they said going to people and saying you're doing and necessary obligations was protected conduct you know there would be a sort of like broad doing unnecessary operation so is that different than saying the was was criticism of the press here and if it hadn't been invited by the fourth member in the position that he was in c and that's i think about the public obligation there is no way that it has