Opinion ID: 725398
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

Text: 14 Macionski alleges that he was terminated for complaining to his employer about unsafe work conditions and maintenance practices. Alaska counters that Plaintiff was terminated for poor judgment. Plaintiff has failed to prove that Alaska's proffered reasons for his termination are pretextual. 15 A tort cause of action for wrongful termination will lie whenever a substantial, fundamental public policy is violated. Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839 (1980); Gould v. Maryland Sound Ind. Inc., 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 718, 723 (1995). The public policy must have a clearly established constitutional or statutory basis. Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 881. Protected are employees who disclose illegal, unethical or unsafe practices. General Dynamics v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 11 (1994). 16 At the time Plaintiff made the statements and gesture at the meeting in front of his employer and subordinates, he was not reporting the actual occurrence of pencil whipping or other safety violations, nor did he have a reasonable suspicion that violations had occurred. 2 Thus, Plaintiff has failed to present evidence which would create a genuine issue of material fact whether he was discharged in violation of public policy. 3 Thus, summary judgment was appropriate on the wrongful discharge claim. AFFIRMED.