1. The first case we looked at (Bammert v. Don's Super Value) concerned wrongful terminationand the at will doctrine. To argue that one has been wrongfully terminated is, in a sense, to argue that the employer lacked good cause to terminate.

1. What are some of the bases upon which an argument for wrongful termination can be made?

1. Previously we reviewed the Garcetti case which concerned protections for employee expression at work. Review the California Whistleblower statute. How is the Garcetti holding at odds with the California law on whistleblower protection? (In other words, how does the California whistleblower laws address complaints internally (as was the situation in Garcetti)? Can this Supreme Court ruling be squared with California whistleblower laws?

1. Retaliation claims and those of whistleblowing protection are similar, however what is the difference between a claim of whistleblower protection versus a claim of retaliation?

1. What did the California case of Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes add to proving claims of whistleblowing? What is the difference between the standard in Lawson versus the framework that we earlier studied in the McDonnell Douglas case?

1. If an employee has a contract with an employer usually they can only be terminated for good cause or just cause (as is the case with most collective bargaining agreements).

1. Despite an employee not having an express written contract of employment, there are instances when an employer may claim that they have an implied contract with an employer.Please provide examples of scenarios in the workplace wherein an employee may claim that an implied contract of employment was established by the employer.

b. Can you think of public policies, that if violated by an employer, would give rise to a claim of wrongful termination by an employee?(In other words, certain terminations based on employee actions, or inactions, may violate public policy. What potentially are some of those policies?)

c. Claims of breaches of employment contracts (as in a. above), if successful, will provide a plaintiff with contractual damages.Whereas claims of a public policy violation can result in tort damages. Why does this matter?