Gardner was an armored car guard employed at will by Loomis. The company had a strict rule that required guards to stay with the armored car under any circumstances and that a violation of this rule would result in immediate termination. During a routine armored car delivery, Loomis witnessed an armed robbery taking place nearby and left his armored car to foil the robbery. The robbery was prevented, but Gardner was terminated for violating workplace rules.

CASE QUESTIONS

1. Should the law prevent Loomis from terminating the guard in this case? Why or why not?

2. Was there a well-defined and clear public policy in this case? If so, what was it?