Opinion ID: 725406
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Public Policy Claim

Text: 14 Montag's third cause of action is for tortious wrongful termination in contravention of public policy. Montag contends that he was discharged from his position as Senior Project Engineer because he brought to Aerospace's attention certain violations of state and federal regulations relating to the preparation of the DSP-2 Report 2 and because he refused to go along with Aerospace's request to suppress and conceal the contents of the report from the United States. 15 California restricts an employer's right to discharge its employees when such discharge is prohibited by statute or violates public policy. Paige v. Henry J. Kaiser Co., 826 F.2d 857, 862 (9th Cir.1987) (citing Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 610 P.2d 1330 (Cal.1980)), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1054 (1988). Montag's contention that he was discharged because he refused to suppress information from the government and because he brought violations of law relating to the preparation of the DSP-2 Report to his employer's attention presents a colorable public policy claim. See Collier v. Superior Court, 279 Cal.Rptr. 453 (Ct.App.1991) (holding that an employer's termination of an employee because the employee disclosed to the employer potentially illegal, unethical or unsafe practices supports a tort action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy); 3 Cal.Labor Code § 1102.5; Cal.Gov't Code § 12653(a), (b). 16 We have previously held that the California tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is not preempted by section 301. In Harper v. San Diego Transit Corp., we explained that the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy clearly implicates proscribe[d] conduct, state-law rights and obligations, and non-negotiable state-law rights within the meaning of Allis-Chalmers. 764 F.2d 663, 668 (1985) (internal quotation omitted). In Garibaldi v. Lucky Food Stores, Inc., 726 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1099 (1985), we recognized that wrongful termination in violation of state public policy (in that case, firing the employee for 'whistle blowing' about the employer's delivery of adulterated milk in violation of California state law) survives federal preemption. Harper, 764 F.2d at 668 (emphasis added) (describing Garibaldi ); see also Paige, 826 F.2d at 863 ([T]he tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy exists independent of any contractual right.). 17 Whether Aerospace discharged Montag in order to prevent him from, or in retaliation for, disclosing truthful information to the government or for reporting violations of state and federal law in the preparation of the DSP-2 report to Aerospace is not dependent on an analysis of the CBA. See Lingle, 486 U.S. at 407. The case was adjudicated on the pleadings, so there has as yet been no determination of whether Montag can establish a prima facie case of such a discharge, or, if he can, whether Aerospace can show that its reason for terminating Montag was not retaliatory. 4 Since Montag alleges a colorable claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, the district court erred in dismissing the claim on the pleadings as preempted.