UPS
Orloff v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Robert Orloff appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for United Parcel Service (“UPS”) on Orloff s claim of wrongful demotion in violation of Idaho public policy, finding that he did not engage in any conduct bringing him within the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. Orloff also appeals the magistrate judge’s denial of leave to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Idaho recognizes a narrow exception to the at-will doctrine “where the employer’s motivation for the termination contravenes public policy.” Bollinger v. Fall River Rural Elec. Co-op., 152 Idaho 632 , 272 P.3d 1263, 1271 (2012). This exception is triggered, however, only when the employee “engage[s] in some protected activity,” id., including “(1) refusing] to commit an unlawful act; (2) performing] an important public obligation; or (3) exercising] certain rights or privileges,” Thomas v. Med. Ctr. Physicians, P.A., 138 Idaho 200 , 61 P.3d 557, 565 (2002). Whether the employee engaged in a “protected activity” is a question of law decided by the court. Bollinger, 272 P.3d at 1271. The…