Under the rationale of Sides , Coman , and Amos , something more than a mere statutory violation is required to sustain a claim of wrongful discharge under the public-policy exception. This language contemplates a degree of intent or wilfulness on the part of the employer. In order to support a claim for wrongful discharge of an at-will employee, the termination itself must be motivated by an unlawful reason or purpose that is against public policy. This case comes to us from the Court of Appeals' reversal of the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. The party moving for summary judgment must establish the lack of any triable issue by showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
All inferences are to be drawn against the moving party and in favor of the opposing party.
Likewise, on appellate review of an order for summary judgment, the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. The forecast of evidence in the instant case, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, shows that defendant violated the Controlled Substance Examination Regulation by failing to utilize an approved laboratory to conduct plaintiff's drug testing. Such conduct may indeed subject an employer to liability under the civil penalty provisions of the Controlled Substance Examination Regulation. Plaintiff also has not forecast any evidence suggesting that his discharge was for an unlawful reason or for a purpose that contravenes public policy. In this case, defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct was the failure to comply with a regulatory statute governing employee drug-testing procedures.