Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 309941.cor.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,796 chars

The city of Yakima maintained a whistleblower policy in its employee handbook.

leffBrownfield argues, in support of the summary judgment motion, that the city of

Yakima provided to the court its 2009 employee handbook, adopted two years after

Brownfield's firing. Presumably Brownfield wants this court to withhold the statutory

exemption because of the city's purported failure to present the relevant policy in support

of its motion. The record, however, shows that the city of Yakima filed both the 2009

handbook and the 2000 handbook, the previous version, in support of its motion.

Brownfield has not argued that the city of Yakima's whistleblower program created by its

policy failed to meet the intent of chapter 42.41 RCW.

leffBrownfield now argues on appeal that the city of Yakima violated its own

whistleblower policy. Nevertheless, Brownfield did not plead, in his complaint, that the

No.30994-1-III
Brownfield v. City ofYakima

city of Yakima violated the city's policy. Brownfield cannot present a theory for relief

that he failed to plead in his complaint as required by CR 8. Dewey v. Tacoma School

Dist. No. 10,95 Wn. App. 18,26,974 P.2d 847 (1999); Shields v. Morgan Financial,

Inc., 130 Wn. App. 750, 758, 125 P.3d 164 (2005). Accordingly, the trial court did not

err by granting summary judgment for the city on the issue of whistleblower liability.

Issue II: Did the trial court err when granting summary judgment dismissing Jeff

Brownfield's wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim, when the federal

court previously ruled that the city of Yakima terminated Brownfield's employment

because of insubordination and unfitness for duty, not for whistleblowing? No.