Inc., 347 N.C. 329, 493 S.E.2d 420 (1997)). “The narrow exceptions to [the employment-at-will doctrine] have been grounded in considerations of public policy designed either to prohibit status-based discrimination or to insure the integrity of the judicial process or the enforcement of the law.” Kurtzman, 347 N.C. at 333-34, 493 S.E.2d at 423. To state a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, an employee has the burden of pleading that his “dismissal occurred for a reason that violates public policy.” Considine, 145 N.C. App. at 317, 551 S.E.2d at 181; see also Kurtzman, 347 N.C. at 331, 493 S.E.2d at 422; Salter v. E & J Healthcare, Inc., 155 N.C. App. 685, 693, 575 S.E.2d 46, 51 (2003). “Public policy has been defined as the principle of law which holds 7 (<HOLDING>), (2) for engaging in a legally protected
holding that employee stated claim by alleging he was wrongfully discharged for refusing to commit criminal act for which he would be held personally liable holding that the plaintiffs complaint stated an enforceable claim for wrongful discharge where the employee was wrongfully discharged in retaliation for refusing to testify falsely in a medical malpractice case holding the complaint stated a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where the employee was discharged for refusing to comply with his employers demand that he continue to operate a commercial vehicle for periods of time that violated federal regulations holding that accountant terminated for refusing to violate professional codes stated cognizable claim for wrongful discharge holding that an employee was wrongfully discharged for refusing to submit to a polygraph test