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

whether violation of public policy was a substantial motivating factor for Paddock’s termination,

but in Mackey, there was not. In Mackey, the employee argued that the employer discharged her

in violation of public policy because it fired her in retaliation for whistleblowing. Id. at 578. The

employer responded that it had a legitimate reason for terminating her employment, namely an

investigation revealing that she gave “an estimated $17,000 in unauthorized discounts.” Id. at 580.

We held that the employee failed to show that her whistleblowing was also a substantial motivating

factor for the termination, reasoning that the employee had “not presented any direct or indirect

16
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

evidence that some reason other than the results of the investigation” played a substantial part in

the employer’s decision. Id. at 585.

In contrast, here, the pretermination investigation was about Paddock testifying in response

to a subpoena—the very action he argues constituted the performance of a public obligation.

Therefore, if Paddock can show that he made statements he believed to be true and thus performed

a public obligation by testifying truthfully in response to a subpoena, he can show that violation

of public policy was a substantial motivating factor for his termination. And Paddock presented

sworn declarations that he testified truthfully, if incorrectly. Thus, he has established a genuine

issue of material fact preventing dismissal of his wrongful discharge in violation of public policy

claim.

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. Because we remand for