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

1,766 chars

941 (1996), adopted four elements, formulated by law professor Henry H. Perritt, Jr., that

an employee must meet to satisfy a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy

action: (1) the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element), (2) discouraging the

conduct in which the employee engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy

element), (3) the public-policy-linked conduct caused the dismissal (the causation

element), and (4) the employer must not be able to offer an overriding justification for the

dismissal (the absence of justification element). Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross, 184

Wn.2d 300,310,358 P.3d 1153 (2015); Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wn.2d at

941. Gonzaga University argues that David Martin fails to present a factual question with

regard to all four elements.

Clarity Element

The employee carries the burden initially of proving the existence of a clear public

policy. Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wn.2d at 941. The courts insist that the

public policy at issue be judicially or legislatively recognized, emphasizing that the tort is

26
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

a narrow exception to the at-will doctrine and must be limited only to instances involving

very clear violations of public policy. Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d at 617. In

determining whether a clear mandate of public policy is violated, courts should inquire

whether the employer's conduct contravenes the letter or purpose of a constitutional,

statutory, or regulatory provision or scheme. Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d at 617. Prior

judicial decisions may also establish the relevant public policy. Dicomes v. State, 113