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

1,783 chars

policy first. On appeal, David Martin contends that he presented sufficient evidence to

raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Gonzaga University fired him for

raising safety concerns over the lack of protective wall padding in the Rudolf Fitness

Center. We disagree. At a minimum, Gonzaga University presents uncontroverted facts

that defeat the fourth element of the cause of action, the absence of an overriding

justification.

In general, employees can quit or be fired for any reason under Washington state

common law. Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931,935,913 P.2d 377

( 1996). Courts, however, have created certain exceptions to the terminable-at-will

doctrine. Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wn.2d at 935. One of these exceptions

provides that employees may not be discharged for reasons that contravene public policy.

Gardner V. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wn.2d at 935.

Washington courts permit public policy tort actions in four situations: (1) when the

employer fires an employee for refusing to commit an illegal act, (2) when the employer

fires an employee for performing a public duty or obligation, such as serving on jury duty,

(3) when an employer fires an employee for exercising a legal right or privilege, such as

filing a workers' compensation claim, and (4) when an employer fires an employee in

25
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

retaliation for reporting employer misconduct. Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128

Wn.2d at 936; Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612,618, 782 P.2d 1002 (1989). Martin

argues his case falls under the fourth category.

The Washington Supreme Court in Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wn.2d at