Wrongful Discharge. $$Stephen Fredrick, a pilot for Simmons Airlines Corp., criticized the safety

of the aircraft that Simmons used on many of its flights and warned the airline about possible safety

problems. Simmons took no action. After one of the planes crashed, Fredrick appeared on the

television program Good Morning America to discuss his safety concerns. The same day, Fredrick

refused to allow employees of Simmons to search his personal bags before a flight that he was

scheduled to work. Claiming insubordination, the airline terminated Fredrick. Fredrick filed a

suit in a federal district court against Simmons, claiming, among other things, retaliatory discharge

for his public criticism of the safety of Simmons$$s aircraft and that this discharge violated the

public policy of providing for safe air travel. Simmons responded that an employee who $$goes

public$$ with his or her concerns should not be protected by the law.$[$Fredrick v$.$ Simmons Airlines

Corp., $144$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d $500(7$th Cir. $1998)]$ Why might the court agree that Fredrick has a claim of retaliatory discharge? Presume that

Fredrick does not belong to a union, and that he is an employee$-$at$-$will. Why is employment$-$at$-$will beneficial for employees and employers? Why might not

having employment$-$at$-$will hinder job creation, and therefore actually be detrimental to

both employers and potential employees?