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

1,747 chars

ALSCO, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 524, 259 P.3d 244 (2011), and Korslund v. DynCorp Tri-Cities

Services, Inc., 156 Wn.2d 168, 125 P.3d 119 (2005). No longer does the existence of

other nonexclusive statutory remedies preclude a plaintiff from recovery. Rose v.

Anderson Hay & Grain Co., 184 Wn.2d at 274 (2015).

Although Gonzaga University claims that David Martin failed to establish the

30
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

jeopardy element of the public policy tort, the university presents no argument to defeat

the application of the element. We hold that Martin presents an issue of fact to survive

summary judgment as to the jeopardy element. David Martin sought to address safety

concerns. His expression of his concerns directly related to the public policy of safety of

university students. Terminating or otherwise punishing an employee who shares

concerns about unsafe conditions directly jeopardizes the public policy interest in

ensuring safety.

Causation Element

Causation in a wrongful discharge claim is not an all or nothing proposition.

Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross, 184 Wn.2d at 314 (2015). The employee need not

attempt to prove the employer's sole motivation was retaliation. Wilmot v. Kaiser

Aluminum and Chemical Corp., 118 Wn.2d 46, 70, 821 P.2d 18 (1991 ). Instead, the

employee must produce evidence that the actions in furtherance of public policy were a

cause of the firing, and the employee may do so by circumstantial evidence. Rickman v.

Premera Blue Cross, 184 Wn.2d at 314. This test asks whether the employee's conduct

in furthering a public policy was a substantial factor motivating the employer to discharge