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

1,773 chars

Before answering the eight questions, we state and restate the rule of overriding

justification. The "absence of justification" element examines whether the employer can

offer an overriding justification for the discharge from employment despite the

employee's conduct furthering public policy. Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128

Wn.2d 931 ( 1996). Stated marginally different, the "absence of justification" element

examines whether the employer has an overriding reason for terminating the employee

despite the employee's public-policy-linked conduct. Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc.,

128 Wn.2d at 947. The fourth element of the public policy tort acknowledges that some

public policies, even if clearly mandated, are not strong enough to warrant interfering

with an employer's personnel management. Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wn.2d

at 947.

Our first question asks which party carries the burden of proof for the element of

overriding justification. Washington cases read that the employee in a wrongful

36
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

discharge suit must fulfill four elements, one of which is the "absence of justification"

element. Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross, 184 Wn.2d at 310 (2015); Gardner v. Loomis

Armored Inc., 128 Wn.2d at 941. This statement of the rule suggests that the plaintiff

employee carries the burden of proving a negative, the nonexistence of another legitimate

reason for his or her firing. Nevertheless, some cases declare that justification for a

discharge is an affirmative defense. Blinka v. Washington State Bar Association, 109

Wn. App. 575, 588-89, 36 P.3d 1094 (2001). According to these cases, once a plaintiff