MacDougall to take its training program, and Weichert shared the commission profits. The critical issue is whether the elements of control and dependence coupled with the absence of any employment protection predominate over factors that favor an independent contractor e problematic public policy does not constitute a clear mandate. Its alleged violation will not sustain a wrongful discharge cause of action. See, e.g., Pierce, supra, 84 N.J. at 76, 417 A.2d 505 (“As a matter of law, there is no public policy against conducting research on drugs that may be controversial, but potentially beneficial to mankind, particularly where continuation of the research is subject to approval by the FDA.”); DeVries v. McNeil Consumer Prods. Co., 250 N.J.Super. 159, 172, 593 A.2d 819 (App.Div.1991) (<HOLDING>); Schwartz v. Leasametric, Inc., 224 N.J.Super.
holding that discharge of employee for having distributed expired drugs at employers direction did not violate clear mandate of public policy because the discharge implicated only the private interests of the parties holding that the discharge of an employee hospitalized for illness did not violate public policy holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy holding that an employee has no right of action against an employer for wrongful discharge where no clear mandate of public policy is violated thereby holding that discharge of employee to avoid paying commissions on future transactions did not violate clear mandate of public policy