Opinion ID: 1198956
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: California's public policy doctrine and plaintiffs claim

Text: Defendant observes that California's public policy doctrine is designed to advance general social policies, and not to compensate employees for specific violations. ( Foley, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 668, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373.) Defendant contends that California's interest in providing a private cause of action is to enforce the statute, not to regulate the employment relationship. Thus, defendant asserts, the policies underlying federal statutes, and the Federal Aviation Act in particular, are neither substantial nor fundamental enough to support plaintiffs wrongful termination action. ( Foley, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 668, 670, 254 Cal. Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373.) Plaintiff notes that the cases on which defendant relies ignore the strong congruence between state and federal public policy involving air safety. (See, e.g., Olguin v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Co. (9th Cir. 1984) 740 F.2d 1468 ( Olguin) ; Tritle v. Crown Airways, Inc. (S.D.W.Va.1989) 751 F.Supp. 585 ( Tritle) ; Rachford v. Evergreen Intern. Airlines, Inc. (N.D.Ill.1984) 596 F.Supp. 384 ( Rachford) . ) As plaintiff observes, Olguin turns primarily on federal preemption and only incidentally discusses the public policy exception, while Tritle and Rachford merely follow Olguin, with no independent analysis. (See Olguin, supra, 740 F.2d at p. 1475; Tritle, supra, 751 F.Supp. at p. 585; Rachford, supra, 596 F.Supp. at p. 385.) Moreover, numerous cases support plaintiffs claim that a wrongful termination claim involving airline safety may stem from federal law. (See, e.g., Air Line Pilots Association, International v. Quesada (2nd Cir. 1960) 276 F.2d 892, 894 [Federal Aviation Act's purpose was to centralize, in a single authority, rulemaking power regarding safe and efficient airspace use]; Norris v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (1992) 74 Haw. 235, 842 P.2d 634, 646, affd. on other issues in Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris (1994) 512 U.S. 246, 114 S.Ct. 2239, 129 L.Ed.2d 203 [airline employee discharged for reporting to the FAA discrepancies in his employer's aircraft maintenance activities was protected against retaliatory discharge because of the state's significant interest in avoiding harm to the flying public].)