Directed verdicts are not favored and are appropriate only where the evidence compels the conclusion that reasonable persons could not disagree and that no evidence, or legitimate inference arising therefrom, has been presented on which the jury's verdict could be sustained. Likewise, judgment notwithstanding the verdict can be entered only if the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is such that no reasonable person could reach the same conclusion as the jury. One exception to the at-will employment doctrine is the public policy exception based on wrongful discharge. Employer here maintains that these four elements were not satisfied at trial. We address and reject each contention in turn.
Employer first contends there was no evidence that it directed employee to perform an illegal act.
Employer s position is that its recommendation of a fuel injector flush as a routine preventive maintenance service was not an illegal act as a matter of law. While there was also conflicting testimony concerning the benefit of fuel injector flushes, there was no evidence that the service should be performed on all vehicles. On the contrary, the manager conceded that it would have been improper to recommend the service on vehicles under fifteen thousand miles. Employee also testified that he knew not all vehicles that came through his stall needed a fuel injector flush. We therefore conclude there was a reasonable basis for the jury s finding that employer directed employee to perform an illegal act as part of employee's work-related duties.