off-load or lay off the plaintiff. The parties are in agreement that, under Kansas law, plaintiff was an employ ee at will during his employment with Beech. The Kansas courts have recognized a cause of action for retaliatory discharge of an at-will employee. See Murphy v. City of Topeka, 6 Kan.App.2d 488, 630 P.2d 186 (1981) (recognizing a cause of action for the discharge of an employee in retaliation for filing a worker’s compensation claim). The tort of retaliatory discharge is an exception to the principle that an at-will employee may be terminated at any time, with or without cause. This exception usually arises when the discharge from employment seriously contravenes a very clear public policy. Cain v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 9 Kan.App.2d 100, 103-04, 673 P.2d 451 (1983) (<HOLDING>), review denied, 235 Kan. 1041 (1984). The
holding in suit brought by shareholders against corporation under federal securities laws that plaintiffs conferred substantial benefit upon corporation by vindicating statutory policy stressing the importance of fair and informed corporate suffrage holding that the sovereignty commission files should be opened to the general public holding that plaintiffs personal opinion on how the kansas corporation commission should carry out the statutory purposes of the kansas securities act is not public policy holding the function of a public utility is controlling not how the term is defined holding that individuals assumption of the role of president of the corporation and her authority to sign documents on behalf of the corporation demonstrate that she had the requisite control over the corporation for purposes of finding individual liability under section 5a