Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/383814_pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,607 chars

work on Saturdays); Wright, 2 F.3d at 217 (employer accommodated employee’s Sabbath

observance by inviting the employee to bid on four open positions that had days off that

were congruent with his Sabbath).

3. PUBLIC POLICY CLAIM

The second claim raised by Suarez is whether there are genuine issues of material

fact sufficient to prevent her public policy claim from being dismissed on summary

judgment. As we noted above, Suarez has preserved her tort claim for violation of public

policy. The tort claim for discharge in violation of public policy is narrower than the

statutory claims allowed under the WLAD. Whereas the statute provides damages for

several adverse employment actions motivated by discrimination, the tort only applies to

an employee discharged in violation of a public policy. Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wn.2d

58, 76, 993 P.2d 901 (2000).

To demonstrate a prima facie case for wrongful termination in violation of public

policy, the plaintiff must produce evidence that her “termination was motivated by

reasons that contravene an important mandate of public policy.” Becker v. Cmty. Health

Sys., Inc., 184 Wn.2d 252, 258, 359 P.3d 746 (2015). “[T]he burden [then] shifts to the

employer to prove that the dismissal was for reasons other than those alleged by the

employee.” Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219, 232-33, 685 P.2d 1081

25
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State

(1984). The tort for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is generally limited

to four scenarios: