In Lamson v. Crater Lake Motors, in which a car sales employee who felt that the sales tactics of the company were unethical and was fired after he refused to cooperate sued the company for wrongful discharge, the appeals court found that:

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The appeals court found that Lamson had no case because his actions were not an important public duty. While the court acknowledged that the sales tactics may have been unethical, they did not rise to the level of a duty that was in the public interest. Therefore, Lamson's refusal to cooperate did not constitute protected whistleblowing activity.

In Lamson V