In Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, the California Supreme Court grappled with the issue of whether a plaintiff can assert a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim without reliance on a statute or constitutional provision as the source of the public policy. Despite the conflict among courts in California and other jurisdictions, the court observed that, for the most part, it has relied on statutory or constitutional expressions of public policy. Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, supra, 1 Cal.4th at page 1094. The court noted earlier that, "the cases in which violations of public policy are found generally fall into four categories: (1) refusing to violate a statute ; (2) performing a statutory obligation ; (3) exercising a statutory right or privilege ; (4) reporting an alleged violation of a statute of public importance ." Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, supra, 1 Cal.4th at pages 1090-1091 The court also observed that ". . . 'public policy' as a concept is notoriously resistant to precise definition, and that courts should venture into this area, if at all, with great care and due deference to the judgment of the legislative branch, 'lest they mistake their own predilections for public policy which deserves recognition at law.' " The court, therefore, concluded that, "a public policy exception carefully tethered to fundamental policies that are delineated in constitutional or statutory provisions strikes the proper balance among the interests of the employers, employees and the public. The employer is bound, at a minimum, to know the fundamental public policies of the state and nation as expressed in their constitutions and statutes . . . ." Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, supra, 1 Cal.4th at page 1095.