Dudewicz v. Norris Schmid, Inc

*81Boyle, J.

I respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ conclusion that the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (wpa)1 prohibits discharge under these facts. In my view, the plaintiff was not engaging in protected activity as defined by the wpa. However, because plaintiff has alleged that his employment was conditioned on his agreement to refuse to prosecute criminal activity of which he had knowledge, he has stated a claim for which relief may be granted for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court…