whom he believed provided substandard care to his patients and in some cases performed unnecessary invasive procedures. Dr. LoPresti claims that his decision not to refer patients to these specialists was guided heavily by Vermont’s prohibition on unprofessional conduct contained in 26 V.S.A. §§ 1354, 1398, and by numerous provisions of the AMA Principles. Dr. LoPresti asserts that his employers wanted him to make the referrals for financial reasons, notwithstanding the prohibition of such practices contained in the aforementioned ethical codes. He alleges that a discharge based on these grounds violates compelling public policy that restricts an employer’s otherwise unfettered discretion to discharge employees. See Payne v. Rozendaal, 147 Vt. 488, 491-92, 520 A.2d 586, 588 (1986) (<HOLDING>). The trial court summarily rejected this
holding public policy prohibited employer from discharging employee in retaliation for honoring subpoena and informing employer she was prepared to testify contrary to employers interest in criminal proceeding recognizing public policy limits on employer discretion in discharging employees holding public policy prohibited employer from discharging employee in retaliation for seeking workers compensation benefits holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy