before consenting or agreeing to a private employer drug test; (2) an employee’s right to be protected from threatened invasions of privacy “without legal justification”; and (3) an employee’s right to accuse an employer of trying to deprive him of unemployment compensation benefits, without being fired. Plaintiff acknowledges that Kansas courts have not recognized any such public policies, and we can find no authority for the proposition that they are recognized (or should be recognized) as exceptions to the doctrine of employment-at-will under Kansas law. Plaintiff relies solely on cases which involve adverse employment action in retaliation for the exercise of workers’ compensation rights or for whistleblowing. See, e.g., Brigham v. Dillon Cos., 262 Kan. 12, 935 P.2d 1054 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Murphy v. City of Topeka-Shawnee County Dept.
recognizing cause of action for retaliatory demotion for asserting workers compensation rights holding that retaliatory discharge demotion or other adverse employment claims state a cause of action under  1981 holding that an atwill employee who alleges retaliatory discharge for the filing of a workers compensation claim has stated a cause of action under pennsylvania law recognizing cause of action recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act