even when the state legislature has enacted an anti-discrimination statute which limits the size of the employer covered by the statute. See, e.g., Molesworth v. Brandon, 341 Md. 621, 672 A.2d 608 (1996) (upholding Maryland’s common law cause of action for wrongful discharge of an employee based on sex discrimination against an employer with less than 15 employees where public policy against sex discrimination was evidenced by constitutional amendment, statutes, and executive order); accord Thurdin v. SEI Boston, LLC, 452 Mass. 436, 895 N.E.2d 446 (2008) (concluding employee may bring claim for sex discrimination under state equal rights act where employer was not covered by Massachusetts’ state employment discrimination law); Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 652 N.E.2d 653 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Williamson v. Greene, 200 W.Va. 421, 490
recognizing that a texas common law claim for retaliatory discharge is a claim sounding in tort recognizing tort of wrongful discharge recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy recognizing common law tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of ohio public policy based upon statutory and judicial sources recognizing the difference between statutory cause of action for retaliation and common law tort of retaliatory discharge