Opinion ID: 6276043
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. Donez’s Wrongful Termination Claim

Text: We affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Leprino on Mr. Donez’s wrongful termination claim. When Leprino fired Mr. Donez, an at-will employee, it was unaware that he claimed to have pushed Mr. Levar in self-defense. Leprino therefore could not have fired him for exercising a purported right to self-defense.6 Legal Background Under Colorado law, an employer may fire an at-will employee without cause unless the plaintiff-employee can establish the termination violated public policy. Rocky Mountain Hosp. & Med. Serv. v. Mariani, 916 P.2d 519, 523 (Colo. 1996). To establish a public policy exception, the plaintiff must show: (1) the employer directed the employee to perform an illegal act as part of the employee’s work-related duties or prohibited the employee from performing a public duty or exercising an important job-related right or privilege; (2) the action directed by the employer would violate a specific statute related to public health, safety, or welfare, or would undermine a clearly expressed policy relating to the employee’s basic responsibility as a citizen or the employee’s right or privilege as a worker; (3) the employee was terminated as the result of refusing to perform the act directed by the employer; and (4) the employer was aware that the employee’s refusal to perform the act was based on the employee’s reasonable belief that the directed act was unlawful. 6 Though the district court resolved the case on a different basis, “we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, even if it requires ruling on arguments not reached by the district court or even presented to us on appeal.” Hayes v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., 12 F.4th 1186, 1201 (10th Cir. 2021) (quotations omitted). 8 Appellate Case: 21-1212 Document: 010110647175 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 9 Bonidy v. Vail Valley Ctr. for Aesthetic Dentistry, P.C., 232 P.3d 277, 281 (Colo. App. 2010) (citing Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100, 109 (Colo. 1992)) (spacing added). For a public policy to be the basis for a wrongful termination claim, it “must serve the public interest and be sufficiently concrete to notify employers and employees of the behavior it requires.” Mariani, 916 P.2d at 525. “Not all potential sources of public policy are of sufficient gravity to outweigh the precepts of at-will employment. . . . The General Assembly is the branch of government charged with creating public policies, and the courts may only recognize and enforce such policies.” Crawford Rehab. Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 553 (Colo. 1997). The Colorado Supreme Court has “unambiguously recognized that the cause of action [for wrongful termination] is not available unless the employer was aware or should have been aware of the protected action prior to its decision to terminate the employee.” Mowry v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 280 F. App’x 702, 710 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (citing Lorenz, 823 P.2d at 110);7 see also Barlow v. C.R. England, Inc., 703 F.3d 497, 507-09 (10th Cir. 2012) (to establish a prima facie case of wrongful termination, plaintiff must demonstrate causation—i.e., that he was fired for engaging in protected activity). 7 We cite this unpublished decision only for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1.(A). 9 Appellate Case: 21-1212 Document: 010110647175 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 10