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

Related Parts of This Source

1,776 chars

23
1 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
I
I No. 34103-8-III
Martin v. Gonzaga University

A material fact is one in which the outcome of the litigation depends in whole or in part.

Morris v. McNicol, 83 Wn.2d 491,494,519 P.2d 7 (1974). The court must construe all

facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Lybbertv. Grant County, 141 Wn.2d29,34, 1 P.3d 1124(2000). Onappealofsummary

judgment, the standard of review is de novo and the appellate court performs the same

inquiry as the trial court. Lybbert v. Grant County, 141 Wn.2d at 34.

In summary judgment procedure, the moving party must first show the absence of

an issue of material fact. Ingersoll v. DeBartolo, 123 Wn.2d at 654. The burden then

shifts to the nonmoving party. Ingersoll v. DeBartolo, 123 Wn.2d at 654. To survive

summary judgment, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts that rebut the

moving party's contentions and that posit a genuine issue as to a material fact. Seiber v.

Poulsbo Marine Center, Inc., 136 Wn. App. 731, 736-37, 150 P.3d 633 (2007). The

nonmoving party may not rely on speculation or argumentative assertions, nor may it have

its affidavits considered at face value. Seiber v. Poulsbo Marine Center, Inc., 136 Wn.

App. at 736. If the nonmoving party fails to offer sufficient evidence of an element

essential to her case, the trial court should grant summary judgment. Hines v. Data Line

Systems, Inc., 114 Wn.2d 127, 148, 787 P.2d 8 (1990).

Wrongful Termination

24
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

We address David Martin's claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public