The court insisted that even in the absence of a legislative pronouncement, the courts may in a proper case determine what is against public policy. Agreeing with the reasoning of the Indiana Supreme Court in Frampton v. Public policy claims often seem able to bypass the procedural requirements found in specific statutes. For example, an Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a common law public policy claim based on a school counselor's allegation that she had been denied a promotion in retaliation for reporting an incident of child abuse by a school principal. 14 IER 172.
Statutory violations remain a common basis for asserting a public policy tort.
Reversing summary judgment, a North Carolina Court of Appeals held that a public policy wrongful discharge claim was adequately stated by the allegation that the plaintiff had been discharged for failing a drug test that was carried out in non-compliance with the drug testing requirements set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. Explaining that North Carolina's version of the public policy exception is not limited to situations involving either an employee's refusal to violate the law or his or her engaging in legally protected activity, the court held that the doctrine was properly invoked in the present case by the allegation that the plaintiff's discharge had violated the public policy of ensuring reliable drug testing. While the North Carolina case examined a statutory violation, in some states, e.g. plaintiff attorney heaven, California, mere administrative regulations may be enough to define public policy. A case from the private sector is illustrative. Affirming a reversal of summary judgment, the California Supreme Court held that a wrongful discharge claim was adequately stated by the allegation that the plaintiff, an aircraft parts inspector with 23 years of tenure, had been discharged for repeatedly complaining that his employer was shipping defective parts and altering inspection records.