Buzek tacitly concedes that Pawnee County is not subject to sections 23-1721 to 23-1737, but argues that the public policy expressed in those statutes applies to all Nebraska counties. In support of this argument, he cites Simonsen v. Hendricks Sodding Landscaping, Inc., 5 Neb. App. 263, 269, 558 N.W.2d 825, 829 (1997), in which a panel of the Nebraska Court of Appeals found a general statement of public policy in a provision of the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act (NFEPA) that declared: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer [as defined in the Act] to discriminate against any of his or her employees . . . because he or she . . . has opposed any practice or refused to carry out any action unlawful under federal law or the laws of this state." See Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 48-1114 (Michie 1995).

" A panel of the Nebraska Court of Appeals, relying upon Schriner and Ambroz, has since declared that "the law in Nebraska is that an at-will employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge against his or her former employer if the employee was discharged in violation of a contractual right or a statutory restriction or when the motivation for the discharge contravenes public policy." Simonsen v. Hendricks Sodding Landscaping, Inc., 5 Neb. App. 263, 269, 558 N.W.2d 825, 829 (1997). The plaintiff in Simonsen claimed that he was fired because he refused to drive a truck with defective brakes (a misdemeanor offense under a Nebraska statute adopting portions of federal motor carrier safety regulations).

While it is true that in 1993, the Nebraska Supreme Court "decline[d] to adopt the public policy exception," Blair v. Physicians Mut. Ins. Co., 496 N.W.2d 483, 487 (Neb. 1993), later cases suggest that the rule is not so hard and fast. In Simonsen v. Hendricks Sodding, 558 N.W.2d 825 (Neb.Ct.App. 1997), the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict in a wrongful discharge case. The Court concluded that a mechanic who was discharged for refusing to drive a truck with defective brakes stated a viable claim for wrongful discharge.

Finding, however, that an action for wrongful discharge could lie only when the employee acts in good faith in reporting a violation of the criminal code, we declined to apply the exception and affirmed summary judgment for the employer because there was no evidence that the employee had reasonable cause to believe that the employer had acted unlawfully or that he had acted in good faith in so reporting. The most recent Nebraska case to address the public policy exception is Simonsen v. Hendricks Sodding Landscaping, 5 Neb. App. 263, 558 N.W.2d 825 (1997). In that case, an at-will employee alleged that he was wrongfully discharged for refusing an order to drive a truck that had defective brakes.

Nebraska courts have found public policy violations to be exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine when "employees . . . are discharged because they refused to commit an act that violates the criminal laws of the state." Simonsen v. Hendricks Sodding Landscaping Inc., 558 N.W.2d 825, 829 (Neb.Ct.App. 1997) (employee who refused to operate truck with defective brakes in violation of state law could not be discharged for refusing to commit an act that violates criminal laws). The Nebraska Supreme Court has also found that an action for wrongful discharge lies when an at-will employee, in good faith and upon reasonable cause, reports his employer's suspected violation of the criminal code. Schriner v. Meginnis Ford Co., 421 N.W.2d 755, 756 (Neb. 1988).

For example, Nebraska courts have found public policy violations to be exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine where "employees . . . are discharged because they refused to commit an act that violates the criminal laws of the state."Simonsen v. Hendricks Sodding Landscaping Inc., 558 N.W.2d 825, 829 (Neb.Ct.App. 1997) (employee who refused to operate truck with defective brakes in violation of state law could not be discharged for refusing to commit an act that violates criminal laws). In addition, the Nebraska Supreme Court has found that an action for wrongful discharge lies when an at-will employee, in good faith and upon reasonable cause, reports his employer's suspected violation of the criminal code. Schriner v. Meginnis Ford Co., 421 N.W.2d 755, 756 (Neb. 1988).

The Legislature articulates public policy when it declares certain conduct to be in violation of the criminal law. See, Schriner v. Meginnis Ford Co., 228 Neb. 85, 421 N.W.2d 755 (1988); Ambroz v. Cornhusker Square Ltd., 226 Neb. 899, 416 N.W.2d 510 (1987); Simonsen v. Hendricks Sodding Landscaping, 5 Neb. App. 263, 558 N.W.2d 825 (1997). The APSA makes a clear public policy statement by utilizing the threat of criminal sanction to ensure the implementation of the reporting provisions set forth to protect the vulnerable adults with which the APSA is concerned.

But we then found that an action for wrongful discharge could lie only if the employee acted in good faith when reporting the violation of the criminal code. Because there was no evidence that the employee had reasonable cause to believe that his employer acted unlawfully, we affirmed the trial court's order granting the employer summary judgment. The Nebraska Court of Appeals has also found a public policy exception when an employee was discharged for refusing to drive a truck that had defective brakes, because to do so would be a violation of the criminal code. Simonsen v. Hendricks Sodding Landscaping, 5 Neb. App. 263, 558 N.W.2d 825 (1997). More recently, we refused to find a public policy exception when an employee was discharged for asserting a claim under the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1228 et seq. (Reissue 1998).