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

legislatively recognized protects employers from having to defend against amorphous claims of

public policy violations and addresses the employers’ legitimate concern that a broad common law

tort would considerably abridge their ability to exercise discretion in managing and terminating

employees.” Rose, 184 Wn.2d at 276. Additionally, the tort “is not designed to protect an

employee’s purely private interest in [their] continued employment; rather, the tort operates to

vindicate the public interest in prohibiting employers from acting in a manner contrary to

fundamental public policy.” Smith v. Bates Tech. Coll., 139 Wn.2d 793, 801, 991 P.2d 1135

(2000).

“To establish a prima facie case of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, an

employee must show” that their “‘discharge may have been motivated by reasons that contravene

a clear mandate of public policy’” and “that the public-policy-linked conduct was a significant

11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

factor in the decision to discharge” them. Mackey, 12 Wn. App. 2d at 577-78 (internal quotation

marks omitted) (quoting Martin v. Gonzaga Univ., 191 Wn.2d 712, 725, 425 P.3d 837 (2018)).

We generally limit wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claims to four

categories: termination for refusing to commit an illegal act; termination for performing a public

duty or obligation, such as jury duty; termination for exercising a legal right or privilege; and

termination in retaliation for whistleblowing. Id. at 578.

Once a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that they were wrongfully discharged in

violation of public policy, the burden of proof shifts to the employer, who must articulate a