Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,741 chars
employment. In the context of this appeal, the fourth component looms as the most

difficult to resolve. In order to methodically address this element, we pose the following

eight questions mainly legal in nature. First, which party carries the burden of showing

overriding justification? Second, must the overriding justification motivate the employer

in firing the employee for the employer to avoid liability? Third, if the answer to the

second question is affirmative, must the overriding justification supersede the unlawful

reason for firing in regards to what motivated the employer? Stated differently, must the

employer be more motivated by the overriding justification than the public policy

violating reason for termination? Fourth, what reasons for termination from employment

qualify as an overridingjustification? In this appeal, we ask whether insubordination

qualifies as an overriding justification. Fifth, must the overriding justification supersede

the unlawful reason for the firing in importance under the law or under public policy?

This fifth question asks if the court measures and weighs the relative strengths of the

overriding justification and the violated public policy. Sixth, if the answer to the fifth

question is in the affirmative, does the court compare the public policy with the employer

34
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

justification in the abstract or does the court consider the importance of the public policy

and employer justification within the context of the facts in the case? Seventh, is the

element of overriding justification an element for the court as a matter of law to resolve