Opinion ID: 689679
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Public Policy Violations

Text: 6 Carroll claims that his reporting of design defects to his supervisors resulted in his termination and constitutes a violation of public policy. A claim for discharge in violation of public policy must be carefully tethered to fundamental policies that are delineated in constitutional or statutory provisions.... Gantt v. Sentry Inc., 1 Cal. 4th 1083, 1095 (1992). 7 In support of his claim, Carroll cites Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 3, subpart 3.1, section 3.101-1. That regulation provides in part: Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions relating to the expenditure of public funds requires the highest degree of public trust and impeccable standards of conduct. 48 C.F.R. Sec.3.101-1 (1993). 8 This regulation is not a legislative pronouncement of the sort contemplated in Foley and Gantt. Because Carroll points to no statutory or constitutional provision that has been violated, his claim must fail. Gantt, 1 Cal. 4th at 1095.