act.” Like Pierce, CEPA forbids retaliatory discharges that are incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy. N.J.S.A 34:19-3e(3). Under CEPA, discharge is in itself enough: the employer need not threaten at all. Furthermore, the statute protects an employee who “blows the whistle” on another employer with whom his employer has a business relationship. N.J.S.A 34:19-3(a). In enacting that provision, the Legislature recognized that the public policy served by CEPA would be undermined if the employer could retaliate against the employee for exposing the other employer’s objectionable conduct. Federal law also provides a clear mandate of public policy against what happened in this case. See D’Agostino v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 133 N.J. 516, 528, 531-35, 628 A.2d 305 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Relevant here is 18 U.S.C.A § 372, which
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 there was no violation of a clear mandate of public policy where an employee was discharged for attempting to curtail the misuse of public tax revenues 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 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