Why was the member of Congress's action in firing the employee significant?

The significance of the member of Congress's action in firing the employee being described as presenting an implied cause of action hinges on the legal framework surrounding employment and congressional authority. An implied cause of action typically refers to a legal claim that may not be explicitly laid out in statute but can be inferred from existing laws or constitutional provisions.

In this context, the termination of the employee could raise substantive legal questions about the rights of the employee under certain protections provided by law, such as those concerning political discrimination, whistleblower protections, or other constitutional rights that have been interpreted by courts as warranting legal redress. When an action by a government official, such as a member of Congress, appears to infringe upon these rights, it can create grounds for the affected individual to seek remedy through a lawsuit, thus supporting the idea of an implied cause of action.

The other options fail to capture this crucial aspect. Acceptable workplace policies, state employment laws, or performance reviews may relate to the context of the termination but do not necessarily establish the broader legal implications that arise when a member of Congress’s actions may violate constitutional protections or statutory rights, making them less relevant in the context of implied causes of action.