Public policy is the backbone of the law. Our laws are fashioned upon basic principles of public policy. And it is fundamental public policy which often dictates whether or not one who is terminated from employment may sue an employer for wrongful termination. Pilots and others in the field of aviation should be aware of how public policy affects their employment security.    Employment law has as a basic tenet the doctrine of at-will termination. Simply put, absent some form of contractual or collective bargaining agreement, an employer may terminate an employee at its will and desire. However, many states have adapted laws that prevent unjust termination without good cause. California was a leader in the evolution of progressive change in favor of employee rights. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), liberal pro-employee rights changes endorsed by the courts during the late 1960s and 1970s, have been narrowed by the more conservative courts of the 1980s and 1990s. Whereas past actions in tort could be brought against employers for wrongful termination based simply upon a lack of good cause for the termination, there must now be shown a breach of some fundamental public policy before substantial damages may be awarded¹.
   Two recent interesting aviation related cases make clear how important public policy is in determining whether or not one has the right to sue.
The case of Sheppard v Freeman, et al. was decided by a California Court of Appeal. Readers who are employed by Southwest Airlines may be familiar with the facts. In summary, Sheppard was a pilot with Southwest. After flying as first officer for four and one-half years, he failed the mandatory captain's upgrade, and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement entered into between Southwest and the pilot's union, he was fired. Rather than call it quits, Sheppard filed a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement contending his termination was the result of a complex scheme and conspiracy among fellow employees. He had an argument with flight attendant Hardiman, who allegedly was having an extra-marital affair with pilot Freeman. According to Sheppard, Hardiman used her influence with Freeman to arrange for Sheppard to fail his check ride.
   After an arbitration hearing, Sheppard's claims were rejected, and his termination upheld. Sheppard then filed suit against Southwest and several co-employees. Because of the collective bargaining agreement, the case against Southwest was dismissed. However, Sheppard continued his case against the co-employees based upon interference with contract, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court threw out each of the claims, and this appeal ensued. The issue to be decided: "Whether an employee or former employee can sue other coemployees individually based on their conduct relating to personnel actions, e.g. termination, demotion, discipline, transfers, compensation setting, work assignments, and/or performance appraisals."
   The court's analysis centered upon fundamentals of public policy. "Indeed, to support a tort action for wrongful discharge, 'the policy in question must involve a matter that affects society at large rather than a purely personal or proprietary interest of the plaintiff or employer,' and must be 'fundamental' and 'substantial,' as well as 'well established' at the time of the discharge." In conclusion, the court stated: "Employees must be allowed to act and speak freely in relation to personnel actions without fear and risk of being sued for doing so. It is the employer that ultimately benefits from, and thus, must bear the risk attendant to, the free exchange of information. Accordingly, we hold that employees, regardless of their scope of employment or personal motives, cannot be individually liable for their acts or words relating to personnel actions unless such liability arises from statute." While the court did not allow the case to proceed against the co-employees for the termination related causes of action, it did allow the case to go forward on the liable cause of action, since that was related to a specific statute.
   While the weight of this decision is unclear, it is important that employees be aware of how they may be treated for actions which occur in and are related to the workplace. Check pilots, or other managerial personnel should know they will not be required to stand as defendants if a disgruntled or terminated employee decides to sue. Likewise, pilots who fail check rides, or are not advanced to higher status, must understand that any grievances must be dealt with according to collective bargaining agreements against the company. If no agreement exists, civil action must be instigated for wrongful termination against the employer, not co-employees. On the other hand, co-employees cannot spread false rumors, or lie about others. That will not be tolerated, and a lawsuit might be able to stand on its face for defamation.
The case of Green v Ralee Engineering Co. was recently decided by the California Supreme Court, which gives it considerable weight, not only in California, but throughout the Country. Although the case does not involve pilots, it does involve Federal Aviation Regulations, and affects all within the aviation industry. The plaintiff worked as a quality control inspector for a company that manufactured fuselage and wing components for military and civilian aircraft. He was aware that his employer was shipping parts to Boeing, Northrop, and other major manufacturers, even though the parts failed inspections. The plaintiff complained to his supervisors on numerous occasions, but was met with deaf ears. In 1991 defendant shut down its night shift operations, and terminated plaintiff. However, it retained other night shift inspectors, some with less experience than the plaintiff. He then sued, claiming damages in tort based upon retaliatory termination, and a public policy favoring aviation safety.
   Citing an Oregon case, the court noted that "[A]ir safety ranks somewhere in pecking order between motherhood and the American flag." The court concluded:

"[T]he public policy behind federal regulations concerning airline safety has a basis in statutory provisions, consistent with our rule that the public policy giving rise to a wrongful termination action have a basis in constitutional or statutory provision. Congress has specifically directed the FAA to 'assign, maintain, and enhance safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce' and to regulate air commerce 'in a way that best promotes its safety. Our judicial decisions favor protecting employees who vindicate important public policy interests. Allowing defendant to discharge plaintiff with impunity after he sought to halt or eliminate its alleged inspection practices would only undermine the important and fundamental public policy favoring safe air travel. By including significant administrative safety regulations promulgated to serve important FAA mandates as a source of fundamental public policy limiting an employer's right to discharge an otherwise at-will employee, we effectively guarantee that employers do not exercise their right to terminate their employees at will in a way that undermines more important public safety objectives."