his wrongful termination claim. See American Computer, 261 Cal.Rptr. at 799. The court reasoned that “the most that can connect [plaintiffs] conduct with the public interest is the argument that by reporting his suspicions to his superiors he took action which might eventually prevent or uncover commission of a felony and thereby serve[] the laudable goal of preventing crime.” Id. Rivera’s situation is similar to that of the employee in American Computer. If Rivera had reported the illegal activities of his co-workers, Rivera may have achieved the “laudable goal” of preventing crime, but this is not enough to fit within the narrow confines of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Compare Green v. Ralee Eng. Co., 19 Cal.4th 66, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 960 P.2d 1046, 1058 (1998) (<HOLDING>). II. Defamation A. Amtrak The district court
holding a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is not available where the employee has an existing statutory remedy recognizing claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where the employee alleged he was handicapped and that his employer discharged him because of his handicap in violation of nc gen stat  1434222 recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge holding that an employee who reported the sale of defective aircraft parts did state a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy because his action was directly connected to federal regulation of air safety