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

Related Parts of This Source

1,763 chars

32
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

supposition. Nevertheless, for purposes of a summary judgment motion, we must accept

Martin's testimony as the truth. Based on this testimony, the man likely most responsible

for the firing of Martin conceded a reason was advocating the safety of students.

Gonzaga University also contends that the undisputed facts show that David Martin never

raised a concern about the walls in the Rudolf Fitness Center until after his firing.

Overwhelming evidence, including the deposition testimony of Jose Hernandez, counters

this contention.

Gonzaga Univer_sity also emphasizes that the facts establish that other employees

for more than five years also discussed the need for wall padding. The university never

fired any of the other employees for raising this concern. We recognize these accentuated

facts as compelling, but the facts should be argued to the trier of fact, when other

evidence supports David Martin's complaints as a cause of his employment termination.

We also note the absence of evidence that another employee spoke to the school

newspaper about the need for the padding.

Finally, Gonzaga University highlights other legitimate reasons that support David

Martin's firing. We will consider facts supporting those reasons under the element of an

overriding justification.

33
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

Overriding Justification Element

We move to the final of the four elements of the tort of wrongful discharge in

violation of public policy, the absence of another justifiable reason for termination from