a tortious interference with contract claim. Plaintiff has met the first element, the existence of a contract, because Kansas law leaves no doubt that the employment at will relationship is a contractual one. Id. at 175, 872 P.2d 252. Plaintiffs claim fails, however, because there was no breach of his employment at will contract. Id. at 168-69, 872 P.2d 252 (“The elements essential to recovery for tortious interference with contract are: ... (3) the intentional procurement of [the contract’s] breach____”). An employment at will contract is not breached by termination. Id. at 176-77, 872 P.2d 252. By its nature it can be terminated at any time and for any reason. Id. Liability for terminating it arises only if one of the two public policy exceptions applies. Id. at 176-77, 872 P.2d 252 (<HOLDING>). Other courts in this district have summarily
recognizing exceptions for retaliation against whistle blowers and retaliation against filers of workers compensation claims holding that texas cause of action for retaliation does arise under its workers compensation laws holding that retaliation claim did not arise under states workers compensation laws recognizing first amendment retaliation right holding the retaliation claim did arise under states workers compensation laws