1128 (Colo.1986); Nettrour v. J.C. Penney Co., 146 Colo. 150, 156, 360 P.2d 964, 967 (1961). B. The issue before the trial court on directed verdict was whether Mariam had presented a prima facie case for wrongful discharge under Martin Marietta v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo.1992). The elements of a wrongful discharge claim under Lorenz can be summarized as follows: (1) the employer directed the employee to perform an illegal act as part of the employee’s duties; (2) the action directed by the employer would violate a statute or clearly expressed public policy; (3) the employee was terminated as a result of refusing to perform the illegal act; and (4) the employer was aware or should have been aware that the employee’s refusal was based upon the employee’s reasonable be 588 (1986) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Compare Cronk v. Intermountain Rural
holding that absence of statutory directive is not dispositive of whether there is a public policy against the directive holding that whether or not defendants are holders of the note is not dispositive as to whether they have standing to foreclose on the property holding that a motion to intervene is not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party holding plaintiffs appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction moot where defendants directive no longer in effect holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy