Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049631-3-II%20Published%20Order.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,777 chars

“(1) where employees are fired for refusing to commit an illegal act; (2) where
employees are fired for performing a public duty or obligation, such as serving jury
duty; (3) where employees are fired for exercising a legal right or privilege, such
as filing workers’ compensation claims; and (4) where employees are fired in
retaliation for reporting employer misconduct, i.e., whistleblowing.”

5
Billings treats this claim as if it was dismissed pursuant to CR 12(b)(6) and cites the law related
to that rule. Regardless, a CR 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is treated as a
motion for summary judgment when matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not
excluded by the court. Sea-Pac Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local Union 44, 103
Wn.2d 800, 802, 699 P.2d 217 (1985). “The motion must be denied unless it appears beyond
doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts, consistent with the complaint, which would entitle
the plaintiff to relief.” Sea-Pac, 103 Wn.2d at 802.

20
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
49631-3-II

Roe, 171 Wn.2d at 755 (quoting Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931, 936, 913 P.2d

377 (1996)).

Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy requires four elements:

“(1) The plaintiffs must prove the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity
element).
(2) The plaintiffs must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged
would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element).
(3) The plaintiffs must prove that the public-policy-linked conduct caused the
dismissal (the causation element).
(4) The defendant must not be able to offer an overriding justification for the
dismissal (the absence of justification element).”