Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,778 chars

employment status? Did Gonzaga University maintain two distinct files for David

54
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

Martin? From what file or files did the documents received by David Martin come? If

the university withheld access to some documents found in either or both files, on what

grounds did the university justify the withholding?

Gonzaga University, as the movant, bears the initial burden of showing the

absence of an issue of material fact. Ingersoll v. DeBartolo, Inc., 123 Wn.2d at 654

(1994). When, because of unanswered factual questions, this court cannot determine

whether genuine issues of material fact require a trial, this court will vacate any summary

judgment order and remand for further proceedings. Kilcullen v. Calbom & Schwab,

PSC, 177 Wn. App. 195, 202, 312 P.3d 60 (2013). We follow this principle and vacate

the summary judgment order dismissing David Martin's personnel file claim.

Our dissenting brother would resolve the personnel file cause of action on the basis

that RCW 49.12.240 and .250 does not permit a private action. The dissenter may be

correct, but we choose to avoid this thorny question if possible.· We also choose to

sidestep the question of what constitutes a "personnel file" for purposes of RCW 49 .12.

If Gonzaga University can show that it produced all requested records, we circumvent the

two questions. We also note that, at the least, contrary to the dissenter's analysis, the

employee may be able to gain the remedy of production of the records through court

action.

55
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

CONCLUSION