discharged for refusing to follow employer’s policy regarding “floating” did not state claim for retaliatory discharge); Maxwell v. Ross Hyden Motors, Inc., 104 N.M. 470, 474, 722 P.2d 1192, 1196 (Court.App.1986) (Unemployment Compensation Law does not establish public policy prohibiting discharge in bad faith and without notice); Zuniga v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 100 N.M. 414, 416-17, 671 P.2d 662, 664-65 (Ct.App.)(discharge based on employer’s erroneous belief that employee had attempted to steal from employer did not violate public policy), cert. denied, 100 N.M. 439, 671 P.2d 1150 (1983). In fact, in only three reported cases have the courts in this state recognized a public policy sufficient to support a cause of action for retaliatory discharge: Salazar, 629 F.Supp. at 1409 (<HOLDING>); Boudar [v. E.G. & G., Inc.], 106 N.M. [279,]
recognizing the difference between statutory cause of action for retaliation and common law tort of retaliatory discharge recognizing retaliatory discharge cause of action when plaintiff discharged for whistleblowing recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge recognizing retaliatory discharge cause of action when employee discharged to prevent vesting of pension benefits