to a clear mandate of public policy.” 84 N.J. at 72, 417 A.2d 505. We therefore modified the common law rule permitting employers and employees, in the absence of an employment contract, to terminate the employment relationship "with or without cause. Id. at 65-66, 417 A.2d 505. We recognized the wrongful discharge cause of action only after balancing the interests of the employee, the employer, and the public. “Employers have an interest in knowing they can run their businesses as they see fit as long as their conduct is consistent with public policy.” Id. at 71, 417 A.2d 505. Out of respect for the employer’s interest, employees can bring -wrongful discharge claims only if they can identi 8); Cerracchio v. Alden Leeds, Inc., 223 N.J.Super. 435, 446, 538 A.2d 1292 (App.Div.1988) (<HOLDING>); Kalman v. Grand Union Co., 183 N.J.Super.
recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge holding that a tort claim for abusive discharge was precluded by the existence of statutory federal and state remedies for discharge of an employee but not determining whether the mwhl sounded in contract or tort recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy holding that under pierce an employee in new jersey may maintain a private action in tort or contract for retaliatory discharge as a result of the filing of an osha complaint because such discharge contravenes our public policy holding osha does not preclude an employee from pursuing a tort action for a retaliatory discharge