What happened. Donald Acher, a senior sales manager at electronics manufacturer Fujitsu, thought his boss, Doug Moore, would be on thin ice if he carried out a plan to boost Fujitsu’s sales with Verizon, a big customer. Moore wanted to sell Fujitsu’s Flashwave product to Verizon and have Verizon remove or destroy similar products, manufactured by Fujitsu’s competitors, which were already installed there. The destruction would have violated reliability standards for the telecommunication industry, which, although developed by private industry, had the force of federal law, Acher thought.

Acher expressed his opposition to the plan internally at Fujitsu and successfully dissuaded management from making a proposal that called for the removal or destruction of products manufactured by Fujitsu’s competitors. He talked Fujitsu out of the plan, and the ultimate proposal to Verizon didn’t require removal or destruction of competing products. Acher was terminated shortly thereafter, though, for his opposition. He sued Fujitsu for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

What the court said. In Massachusetts, an at-will employee generally can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but one narrow exception to that rule is a discharge that violates clearly established public policy. Reporting, resisting, or refusing to participate in criminal activities, or those that threaten public health and safety, are clear exceptions. But the harm or threat to health or safety can’t be too remote or speculative.

Acher said that he was terminated for opposing the proposal that Verizon destroy Fujitsu’s competitors’ equipment, and that if carried out, the plan would have compromised telecommunications reliability standards. But the court questioned whether the plan would have violated federal law, because it didn’t implicate any criminal statute, and the potential harm to public safety was unidentified. Also, Acher’s claim was flawed because Verizon had the ability to evaluate the merits of the plan. And the alleged threat was not imminent, or even close to realization.

The public policy exception, the court said, does not protect all employee acts that are appropriate or socially desirable, nor does it extend to all acts by an employee that are directed to illegal, unsafe, or unethical conduct. Acher v. Fujitsu Network Communications, U.S. District Court, D. Mass., No. CIV.A. 03-12099-FDS (1/26/05).

Point to remember: In assessing similar situations in your workplace, evaluate not only the clarity of the policy alleged to be violated but also the imminence of the threat.