Opinion ID: 3048200
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: If an employer fires an employee for trying to

Text: exercise his right to the receipt of wages, has the employer violated the public policy exception to atwill employment? Paolini v. Albertson’s, Inc., 418 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Paolini I”). [2] The Idaho Supreme Court granted our request and provided its answer in Paolini v. Albertson’s Inc., 149 P.3d 822 (Idaho 2006) (“Paolini II”). The court held in Paolini II that stock options do not constitute wages under Chapter 6 of Title 45 of the Idaho Code. Id. at 825.3 [3] As we noted in Paolini I, “if stock options are not wages then no triable issue of fact exists for the wrongful discharge claims under Idaho’s wage law.” 418 F.3d at 1026. Since the Idaho Supreme Court held that stock options are not wages, we must affirm the district court’s dismissal of Paolini’s claim that he was terminated for pursuing a wage 3 Because the court held that stock options are not wages, it concluded that our second question was moot. Accordingly, the court did not consider whether an employee’s attempt to exercise his right to the receipt of wages is protected such that firing an employee for those actions would violate the public policy exception. 3952 PAOLINI v. ALBERTSON’S INC. complaint, in violation of Idaho Code § 45-613. Cf. Reinkemeyer v. SAFECO Ins. Co. of America, 166 F.3d 982, 984 (9th Cir. 1999) (“We are bound by the answers of state supreme courts to certified questions . . . .”). [4] For the same reason, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Paolini’s claim that his termination was contrary to Idaho’s “public policy exception” to the at-will employment relationship. Cf. Edmondson v. Shearer Lumber Products, 75 P.3d 733, 737 (Idaho 2003) (“[A]n employer may be liable for wrongful discharge when the motivation for discharge contravenes public policy.”). If, as the Idaho Supreme Court concluded, stock options are not wages, Paolini’s assertion of his entitlement to the options is not protected as a matter of public policy. See, e.g., id. at 738-39 (holding that the exception does not include protecting an employee’s constitutional right of free speech). Paolini has not raised any genuine issue of fact with regard to any other ground for applying the public policy exception.