Opinion ID: 2353157
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reporting Violations of Law: Whistleblowing

Text: Margiotta claims that he falls into the second theory of wrongful discharge, that of reporting violations of law or public policy to his superiors, commonly referred to as whistleblowing. Lynch v. Blanke Baer & Bowey Krimko, Inc. 901 S.W.2d 147, 150 (Mo.App.1995). For Margiotta to prevail, he must show that he reported to superiors or to public authorities serious misconduct that constitutes a violation of the law and of .... well established and clearly mandated public policy. Id. (emphasis added). The mere citation of a constitutional or statutory provision in a [pleading] is not by itself sufficient to state a cause of action for retaliatory discharge, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the public policy mandated by the cited provision is violated by the discharge. 82 Am.Jur.2d § 61 citing Fellhauer v. City of Geneva, 142 Ill.2d 495, 154 Ill.Dec. 649, 568 N.E.2d 870 (1991); See generally Johnson, 745 S.W.2d at 663. Generally, there is no whistleblowing protection for an employee who merely disagrees personally with an employer's legally-allowed policy. Daniel P. Westman, Whistleblowing the Law of Retaliatory Discharge, 112(1991). See also 82 Am.Jur.2d § 54. However, the violation of the applicable authority need not result in criminal sanctions. Whether the violation results in civil fines, injunctions, or disciplinary action against a professional license is immaterial to the wrongful discharge action. Moreover, as our companion opinion Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, Inc ., announced, there is no requirement that the violations that the employee reports affect the employee personally, nor that the law violated prohibit or penalize retaliation against those reporting its violation. 304 S.W.3d at 97. The pertinent inquiry here is whether the authority clearly prohibits the conduct at issue in the action. An illustration of this principle was discussed in Lay v. St. Louis Helicopter Airways, Inc ., where a helicopter pilot alleged that he was terminated because he refused, against his employer's wishes, to make three flights he believed to be in violation of FAA regulations. 869 S.W.2d at 175. The regulation he cited mandated that member's pilots will exercise their best judgment to insure a maximum safety factor at all times. Id. The court found that regulation too vague and noted that the pilot did not cite to any specific regulation showing the flights unsafe. Id.