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

1,725 chars
performance was a pretext and Moore wrote the letters of reprimand after the firing.

Based on Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931 (1996), we hold that

the court must weigh the importance of the public policy asserted by the employee and the

justification for firing advanced by the employer. Gardner unfortunately provides no

guidance as to a comparison and measurement of the strength of the public policy and the

employer justification.

Our sixth question is whether we compare the strength of the public policy with

the overriding justification in the abstract or whether we measure the weight of both

within the context of the facts of the appeal. If we kept our analysis in the ab~tract, we

would ponder the theoretical importance of student safety compared to an employer's

interest in dismissing an insubordinate employee. We might conclude that student safety

supersedes the employer's interest in an obedient employee. Nevertheless, a different

outcome might ensue ifwe consider all of the facts concerning David Martin's conduct

48
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

and his relationship with Gonzaga University in light of the values of student safety and a

cooperative employee.

We decide to assess the comparative worth of student safety and a subordinate

worker within the context of the case's circumstances. Student safety and

insubordination exist in degrees, such that the context is important. When assessing the

overriding justification in Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931 ( 1996) and

Wahl v. Dash Point Family Dental Clinic, Inc., 144 Wn. App. 34 (2008), the Washington