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

1,789 chars

the Rudolf Fitness Center. Hernandez and Morgan went to the fitness center to speak

with Main. Main told them that Martin said: "Joel is upset I went over his head and Jose

is a push over." CP at 216. Consequently, Morgan consulted with Heather Murray

concerning Martin's actions during and after the meeting. Morgan and Murray agreed

that Martin should be placed on administrative leave until further notice. According to

Hernandez, the university placed Martin on administrative leave because he abandoned

his duties and advised Shelly Radtke to tell Hernandez of his early absence.

On March 2, 2012, Jose Hernandez notified David Martin that Gonzaga University .

placed him on paid administrative leave. Hernandez instructed Martin that the terms of

his leave forbad him to contact anyone at Gonzaga University except human resources

staff and Hernandez.

David Martin states that, before his termination from employment, he was

wrongfully accused of leaking information to The Gonzaga Bulletin, a Gonzaga

University student publication. Martin does not identify the accuser or the date of the

13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

accusation. Martin attached, to his declaration, a copy of a May 10, 2012 Gonzaga

Bulletin article, entitled "Gym safety questioned as employee fired." CP at 38-39. We

wonder if the attachment contains the entire article. Our copy of the article does not

mention the dismissal of Martin or anyone else from employment. The article quotes

"Martin" without mentioning his first name or position with the fieldhouse. CP at 39.

The article also mentions Martin's "proposal," but does not identify the proposal. CP at

39. The article reads, in part: