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

or for the trier of fact to decide? Eighth and the ultimate question, does David Martin

present an issue of fact with regard to the overriding justification element that survives

Gonzaga University's summary judgment motion?

We find no easy answer to most of our eight questions such that the Supreme

Court may wish to accept review to clarify the overriding justification element. Most, if

not all, Washington decisions since the seminal case of Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc.,

128 Wn.2d 931 (1996), note the absence of an overriding justification as an element of

wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Nevertheless, only Gardner and Wahl v.

Dash Point Family Dental Clinic, Inc., 144 Wn. App. 34, 181 P.3d 864 (2008) discuss the

element in any depth. Foreign case law helps little because only Guam, Ohio, and Utah

have adopted Henry H. Perritt, Jr.' s, four elements of the tort of wrongful discharge in

violation of public policy, including the overriding justification element. Becker v.

Community Health Systems, Inc., 182 Wn. App. at 963 (2014). Whether a fourth

jurisdiction, Iowa, has adopted the four-part analysis is questionable because the state

may subsume the alternative or overriding justification element into the third element of

35
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

causation. Raymond v. U.S.A. Healthcare Center-Fort Dodge, LLC, 468 F. Supp. 2d

1047, 1057 (N.D. Iowa 2006); Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chemical, Inc., 613 N.W.2d 275,

282 (Iowa 2000). Ohio courts have issued oodles of cases, some published and many

unpublished, that discuss briefly the overriding justification, and, thus, we occasionally

mention Ohio law. -