§ 6.1.6.1 Federal Law. In Ransom v. Arizona Board of Regents,97 an Arizona federal district court judge cited Wagenseller for the proposition that "the public policy at issue in a wrongful termination claim is the law of the state."98 Another Arizona federal district court judge had similarly concluded that "contravention of a public policy set forth in federal law does not support a state law wrongful discharge claim" in Arizona.99
However, in Elliot v. LTD Direct Marketing,100 another Arizona federal district court judge relied upon the Ninth Circuit's analysis of California law in Rains v. Criterion Systems101 in suggesting that a federal statute could be "a source of public policy supporting [a] state law claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy" in Arizona.102 The Arizona Court of Appeals subsequently adopted this view in Cummins v. Mold-In Graphic Systems.103
The Cummins court rejected the view expressed in Ransom104 that "Wagenseller stands for the proposition that the public policy of this state is embodied exclusively in Arizona's constitution, statutes, and court decisions."105 In holding that federal law could also provide the public policy on which a state law wrongful discharge claim can be premised,106 the Cummins court stated:
We see no difference between the employee who is terminated for refusing to break the laws of our state and the employee who is terminated for refusing to violate our federal laws. . . . [T]he policy considerations underlying the adoption of the public policy/illegal act exception to at-will employment serve to prevent an employee from having to choose between the employee's continued employment and violating a law.
With this consideration in mind, it is only logical that the source of the law proscribing the requested conduct is immaterial, so long as that law applies to those within the territorial boundaries of Arizona and manifests a clear mandate of public policy. . . . Laws that affect Arizona as a whole may provide the basis for a wrongful termination suit for refusing to engage in illegal conduct, regardless of whether the proscribed conduct is made unlawful by the state or the federal government.107
The claim at issue in Cummins arose prior to the effective date of the EPA,108 which specifically limits the right to assert wrongful discharge claims of the type at issue in Cummins to those employees who are terminated for refusing to "commit an act or omission that would violate the...
