Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 56466-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

more than four years before his deposition.” CP at 748. The attorney also said, “It was clear to me

that at no time during the deposition did Mr. Paddock engage in any behavior I perceived to suggest

1
Paddock made other claims that the trial court dismissed. Paddock does not assign error to these
dismissals on appeal.

8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

that he was intentionally lying.” Id. The attorney concluded: “I recall a man unfamiliar with the

legal process struggling to make his best effort to recall what had occurred several years prior, to

the best of his ability.” CP at 749.

At the summary judgment hearing, the trial court stated it was granting the Port partial

summary judgment on Paddock’s claim for lost wages. The trial court explained that there was

“no dispute as to [Paddock’s] disability,” and that as “a matter of law,” Paddock was “estopped

from arguing otherwise.” Verbatim Rep. of Proc. (Oct. 8, 2021) at 47-48.

After the hearing, the trial court also granted the Port’s summary judgment motion and

dismissed all of Paddock’s claims. The court entered findings of fact to support its decision even

though it was granting summary judgment. Paddock appeals.

ANALYSIS

Paddock argues that the trial court erred when it granted the Port’s summary judgment

motion. He contends that he was discharged “in violation of public policy and as a result of” the

Port’s “retaliatory conduct.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 39. He further contends that the trial court

“improperly foreclosed [his] claim for lost income.” Id. at 60. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal

of Paddock’s wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim, but we conclude that Paddock