Have any of the employers in the following cases terminated an employee in violation of public policy? Has each employer acted ethically?

a. A nonexempt employee alleged that she was discharged after thirty years of employment with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation because she complained about being underpaid and requested remediation. She also claimed that she was forced to falsify her timekeeping records during her employment at the clinic. [DeMell v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 2007 WL 1705094 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. June 14, 2007).]

b. An employee hired as an “environmental/assistant safety manager” complained about a-Z-Boy’s handling of injured employees on a number of occasions. Among other incidents, she submitted a memorandum in which she stated that employees’ injury claims were being intentionally mismanaged and that the claim adjuster was hostile to employees who filed workers’ compensation claims. She also informed the human resources director that the “alternate duty assignments” given to injured employees were demeaning. When she told La-Z-Boy’s vice president that an employee had been injured and that his benefits were being improperly denied, she alleges that she was told “she would be fired if she ever talked to any employees about their Workers’ Compensation issues or their injuries.” Several months later while she was on maternity leave, she was informed that she had been terminated and her position had been filled. [Touchard v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 148 P.3d 945 (Utah 2006).]

c. Joan Grinzi worked as a case manager for San Diego Hospice Corporation for thirteen years. During her employment, she received a promotion, commendations, and raises. Hospice never warned or disciplined her, and she performed all her duties and obligations. In early 2002, Hospice fired her, explaining that her termination was because of her membership in the Women’s Garden Circle, an investment group that Hospice believed to be an illegal pyramid scheme. A few days later, Hospice told her that she was terminated for wrongful use of Hospice’s e-mail system. Grinzi filed suit, claiming that the true reason for her termination was her lawful conduct outside working hours, consisting of her membership in the Women’s Garden Circle, in violation of the First Amendment and Labor Code Sections 96(k) and 98.6, which provide for the employee, or a labor commissioner, to prosecute “claims for the loss of wages as the result of . . . discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises.” [Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp., 120 Cal. App. 4th 72 (2004).]

d. Collotype Labels suspended Luke after learning that he had lied about having his position covered when he took time off. While he was suspended, Luke sent an e-mail to a Collotype manager in another office, entitled “trouble brewing,” that related to various complaints raised by a number of Collotype employees. The next day, Collotype terminated Luke’s employment for insubordination, and provided him with a termination memorandum stating that one of the reasons for his termination was that he had been soliciting signatures for a letter denouncing the company’s management. [Luke v. Collotype Labels USA, Inc., 159 Cal. App. 4th 1463 (2008).]