of Woolley to public employers, and recently declined an invitation to so do. See Golden v. County of Union, 163 N.J. 420, 431, 749 A.2d 842 (2000) (concluding that public employee’s reliance on Woolley was misplaced in view of statutory language establishing employee’s at-will employment status). See also Walsh v. State, 147 N.J. 595, 689 A.2d 131 (1997) (affirming determination that implied-eontract doctrine should not apply to public employee’s action in view of at-will relationship created by statute). Moreover, in a case involving a county adjuster whose appointment was governed by statute, we did not imply a fixed term of employment or impose one on the public employer. DiPaolo v. Passaic County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 322 N.J.Super. 487, 493, 731 A.2d 519 (App.Div.1999) (<HOLDING>), aff'd o.b., 162 N.J. 572, 745 A.2d 540
holding that no public policy stated where employee and not public at large would benefit from employees whistleblowing actions recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding that the public employment relationship derives from applicable statutory schemes and not from an independent contract between public employer and employee holding that an employee handbook did not constitute a valid unilateral contract between the employee and employer in the absence of adequate independent consideration holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees