May administrative regulations be a source of fundamental public policy that limits an employer's right to discharge an otherwise at-will employee? Although our Legislature has determined that an employment contract is generally terminable at either party's will (Lab. Code, ยง 2922), *fn1 we have created a narrow exception to this rule by recognizing that an employer's right to discharge an at-will employee is subject to limits that fundamental public policy imposes. (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 172 (Tameny).) In Tameny, we drew from Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 184 (Petermann) to hold that at-will employees may recover tort damages from their employers if they can show they were discharged in contravention of fundamental public policy. (Tameny, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 177.) Both Tameny and Petermann relied on substantial public policy concerns to limit the employer's discharge right, and subsequent cases have recognized similarly narrow public policy violations for discriminatory or retaliatory termination. (Tameny, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 172; Petermann, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d at p. 188 [perjury]; Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 894 (Stevenson) [age discrimination]; Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 90-91 [sex discrimination].)
