Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/341038_pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,690 chars

5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 34103-8-III
Martin v. Gonzaga University

According to David Martin, before he raised this safety concern to Jose

Hernandez, he received a raise for good work performance. Thereafter, Martin received

no pay raises despite receiving complimentary performance evaluations. David Martin

does not present records to support these assertions.

During the employment of David Martin, other Rudolf Fitness Center employees

expressed concerns about the lack of protective wall padding in the basketball courts.

According to Associate Director Shelly Radtke and Assistant Director Andrew Main, all

Athletics Department staff discussed the lack of padding on the walls of the Rudolf

Fitness Center. Neither Radtke nor Main identified a supervisor to whom either raised a

safety concern about the walls.

One or more supervisors of David Martin periodically reviewed his job

performance. Martin testifies that supervisors never advised him of any work

performance deficiencies. Records show, however, that Martin received below average

ratings for his interpersonal skills, problem solving, professional development, and

leadership responsibilities on his April 28, 2011 performance review. The review noted

that Martin's overall performance "was below the quality and standard that he is capable

of." CP at 128. The review further read:

[Martin's] inconsistent performance kept him from meeting the basic
job requirements. ·Throughout the academic year, at times he would

6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 34103-8-111
Martin v. Gonzaga University