Opinion ID: 1198956
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Nature of plaintiffs claim

Text: Defendant next insists that, because the regulations and statute on which plaintiff relies are wholly federal in nature, we should not extend the common law public policy tort doctrine to defendant's alleged federal law violations. Defendant also asserts that we should bar plaintiffs claim because neither the Federal Aviation Act nor the implementing regulations contain a provision prohibiting an employee's retaliatory termination, nor do they provide for private civil damages. Defendant's arguments are without merit. As plaintiff notes, Gantt holds employers responsible for knowing the fundamental public policies of the state and nation. ( Gantt, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 1095, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680, italics added.) In Tameny, supra, 27 Cal.3d at page 170, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330, federal antitrust laws formed, in part, the basis for the wrongful termination claim. The Court of Appeals of Oregon rejected a similar preemption argument in Anderson, supra, 886 P.2d at pages 1070-1072. Anderson observed that the Federal Aviation Act specifically states, `Nothing contained in this chapter shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this chapter are in addition to such remedies.' ( Anderson, supra, 886 P.2d at p. 1070, quoting 49 U.S.C. former § 1506.) When Congress amended the act in 1978, it retained the saving clause. (49 U.S.C. former appen. § 1305(a)(1).) Anderson also observed that the Federal Aviation Act provides no remedy for wrongful discharge, and it concluded that plaintiffs would have no remedy for a wrongful termination if the preemption doctrine barred them from bringing a state law-based wrongful discharge claim. ( Anderson, supra, 886 P.2d at pp. 1071-1072.)