holding that the court would recognize only those public policies that “are so substantial and fundamental that there can be virtually no question as to their importance for promotion of the public good”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the court would recognize only those public policies that “are so substantial and fundamental that there can be virtually no question as to their importance for promotion of the public good”
- holding that an employee who reported the sale of defective aircraft parts did state a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy because his action was directly connected to federal regulation of air safety
- recognizing that regulations can be valid public policy sources upon which to base wrongful discharge claims if regulations are consistent with terms and intent of authorizing statute
- holding federal law may serve as the basis of public policy as long as connection is shown between the law violated and the public policies of the State of Utah
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KENNARD, J.
I concur in the judgment and in the overruling of this court’s decision in Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 , 824 P.2d 680 ] (Gantt) insofar as it held that a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy may not be based on a public policy expressed in a validly enacted regulation, but only on a public policy articulated in a statutory or constitutional provision. For the reasons stated in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Gantt (id. at p. *91 1101), I remain of the view that a discharged employee should be permitted to recover tort damages for wrongful termination whenever the employer’s action in discharging the employee violated a fundamental public policy delineated in existing law, regardless of the source of that law, including fundamental public policies delineated in administrative regulations and judicial decisions.