California whistleblower ruling favors plaintiffs.

Whistleblowers in California may now enjoy greater job protections, thanks to a recent ruling by the California Supreme Court.

In a 5-2 decision in late August, the court reinstated a wrongful discharge suit by a whistleblower who had been terminated from his job as a quality control inspector at an aircraft parts company. The plaintiff, Richard Green, claimed he was fired because he had complained that his company was knowingly shipping allegedly defective jet parts to major airline assembly companies. (Green v. Ralee Engineering Co., 960 P.2d 1046 (Cal. 1998).)

At issue in the case was whether California law allowed Green, an at-will employee, to sue for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy based on administrative regulations rather than on constitutional or statutory provisions.

In California, the state legislature has determined that an employment relationship generally can be terminated at either party's will. The state supreme court, however, has created a narrow exception to this rule by recognizing that at-will employees may recover tort damages from their employers if they can show they were discharged in violation of fundamental public policy.

Green claimed his complaints served a broad public policy favoring aviation safety, entitling him to tort damages.

The defendant company, Ralee Engineering Co., sought summary judgment. Ralee claimed it was entitled to discharge Green even if it was motivated by his objections to its inspection and shipping practices because no statute or constitutional provision specifically prohibited these practices.

Ralee noted that Green cited the entire Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to support his claim--not to a specific part of the statute or constitutional provision.

The trial court granted summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed. After doing some independent research, the appeals court identified several key federal regulations involving airline safety on which Green relied. It then requested supplemental briefings on whether those regulations could form the basis for Green's public policy claim.

Ultimately, the appeals court concluded that Green had established a sufficient connection between the public policy favoring safe manufacture of passenger aircraft and federal law to satisfy California's rule that the public policy be based on either a statute or constitutional provision, since by definition, regulations are derived from statutes.

The state supreme court affirmed, ruling that the federal safety regulations promulgated to address important public safety concerns may serve as a source of fundamental public policy, since the regulations are "tethered" to fundamental policies delineated in a statutory or constitutional provision.

The decision is being viewed as a shift in state employment law since in its ruling, the majority clarified the court's 1992 decision in Gantt v. Sentry Insurance.(824 P.2d 680 (Cal. 1992).) There, the court restricted public policy wrongful discharge suits to those that were "tethered" to statutory or constitutional provisions. The court did not specifically address whether regulations are a source of public policy.

William Quackenbush, a San Mateo attorney who represented Green, said the decision "opens the door for creative plaintiff attorneys to consider all state and federal regulations to determine whether a plaintiff's conduct may be protected, and therefore whether the termination may support tort damages."