In Wholey v. Sears Roebuck, 370 Md. 38, 803 A.2d 482 (2002), an employee was discharged from employment for investigating and reporting to his supervisor suspected criminal activity of a co-employee. Id. at 45-46. The issue was whether the employee had a cause of action for wrongful discharge. Id. at 46. The Court filed a plurality opinion (Battaglia, J; Cathell, J; Harrell,J) recognizing a new public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine, stating that an employee who was fired for reporting illegal activities to the proper authorities could bring a viable claim under the wrongful discharge doctrine. Id. at 70. Judge Battaglia, writing for the plurality, concluded that the exception did not apply to the employee in the case, however, because all of the employee's allegations had been made to supervisors and co-workers who were internal to the company, not to the police or another enforcement agency. Id. A concurring opinion reached the same conclusion, without recognizing the new exception created in the plurality opinion. Wholey v. Sears Roebuck, 370 Md. 38, 71-76, 803 A.2d 482 (2002) (JJ. Raker and Wilner concurring in the judgment). A dissenting opinion was also filed. Wholey v. Sears Roebuck, 370 Md. 38, 76-77, 803 A.2d 482 (2002) (JJ. Eldridge and Bell dissenting). Essentially, the plurality of the Wholey court simultaneously recognized a new mandate of public policy to protect employees who reported corporate wrongdoing to outside authorities like the police, and declined to recognize a public policy in favor of employees who reported corporate wrongdoing to internal authorities like supervisors. See id. at 70. The Wholey plurality observed that the purpose of the tort of wrongful discharge, i.e., to provide a remedy for an otherwise unremedied violation of public policy, defined the first limiting factor in recognizing a new public policy. Id. at 52. When a statutory cause of action is available to redress the injuries of an employee, wrongful discharge is not an appropriate remedy, and no public policy need be recognized. Id. at 52. Only if no statutory remedy exists, might wrongful discharge be an appropriate remedy. Id.