originally hired under a contract terminable at-will may be able to enforce such termination procedures under a theory of breach of implied contract or promissory estoppel. See Keenan, 731 P.2d at 711-12. The second exception upon which Weiss-man relies arises out of Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100, 105 (Colo.1992). In Lorenz, the plaintiff alleged that he was terminated for refusing to engage in illegal conduct. Concluding that “an employee, whether at-will or otherwise, should not be put to the choice of either obeying an employer’s order to violate the law or losing his or her job,” we recognized a public-policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine. Lorenz, 823 P.2d at 109; see also Rocky Mountain Hosp. & Med. Serv. v. Mariani, 916 P.2d 519, 527-28 (Colo.1996) (<HOLDING>). Our task in this case is to determine whether
holding no legally cognizable claim for wrongful discharge where employee was terminated after seeking legal redress against a coworker for assault and battery recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge holding claim is cognizable holding claim is not cognizable holding that accountant terminated for refusing to violate professional codes stated cognizable claim for wrongful discharge