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

legitimate reason for the discharge. Id. at 580. The burden is one of production, not persuasion, so

the employer only needs to introduce evidence that, taken as true, permits the conclusion that its

reason was lawful. Id. at 580-81.

If the employer can articulate a legitimate reason, “the burden shifts back to the employee

to produce sufficient evidence to establish” that “the employer’s alleged . . . reason for the adverse

employment action was pretextual or that even if the stated reason was legitimate, . . . violation of

public policy also was a substantial motivating factor.” Id. at 581.

B. Public Duty or Obligation

We hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Port on

Paddock’s claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. There is a genuine question

of material fact about whether the Port discharged Paddock for performing a public duty or

obligation.

Paddock was subpoenaed to testify in a federal court case. A federal district court may hold

a person in contempt if they have been served with a subpoena and they fail “without adequate

12
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(g). A court’s contempt

authority is “a power ‘necessary to the exercise of all others.’” Int’l Union, United Mine Workers

of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831, 114 S. Ct. 2552, 129 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1994) (quoting United

States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 34, 3 L. Ed. 259 (1812)). “Courts

independently must be vested with ‘power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their

presence, and submission to their lawful mandates.’” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6