“In contrast, here, the pretermination investigation was about Paddock testifying in response to a subpoena—the very action he argues constituted the performance of a public obligation. Therefore, if Paddock can show that he made statements he believed to be true and thus performed a public obligation by testifying truthfully in response to a subpoena, he can show that violation of public policy was a substantial motivating factor for his termination,” Chief Judge Rebecca Glasgow wrote on behalf of the court. “And Paddock presented sworn declarations that he testified truthfully, if incorrectly. Thus, he has established a genuine issue of material fact preventing dismissal of his wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim.”