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
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
Full Text
1,725 charsperformance 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