under the public-policy exception involved employees terminated for refusing to engage in unlawful or unethical conduct. In contrast to the employees in Lorenz and Mariani, Weissman here alleges that she was terminated for exercising a job-related right, not for refusing to engage in unlawful or unethical conduct. Specifically, Weissman alleges that she was discharged because she complained to the division that Crawford was attempting to eliminate her morning and evening rest breaks and because she continued to exercise those breaks. Although an employee terminated for exercising a job-related right may state a cognizable claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy under certain circumstances, see, e.g., Lathrop v. Entenmann’s, Inc., 770 P.2d 1367, 1372 (Colo.App.1989) (<HOLDING>), we conclude that such circumstances do not
holding public policy prohibited employer from discharging employee in retaliation for seeking workers compensation benefits recognizing wrongful discharge claim where employer allegedly discharged employee for exercising right to receive workers compensation benefits holding that employee must prove that the sole reason for their discharge was their filing of a workers compensation claim to prevail on a claim of wrongful discharge under marylands workers compensation act recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim