Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,725 chars
“(1) where employees are fired for refusing to commit an illegal act; (2)
where employees are fired for performing a public duty or obligation,
such as serving jury duty; (3) where employees are fired for exercising a
legal right or privilege, such as filing workers’ compensation claims; and
(4) where employees are fired in retaliation for reporting employer
misconduct, i.e., whistle-blowing.”

Martin v. Gonzaga Univ., 191 Wn.2d 712, 723, 425 P.3d 837 (2018) (quoting Gardner v.

Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931, 936, 913 P.2d 377 (1996)).

“‘The question of what constitutes a clear mandate of public policy is one of law’

and can be established by prior judicial decisions or constitutional, statutory, or

regulatory provisions or schemes.” Martin, 191 Wn.2d at 725 (quoting Dicomes v. State,

113 Wn.2d 612, 617, 782 P.2d 1002 (1989)). In this case, Suarez argues that she was

fired in violation of the public policy against religious discrimination. She points to the

WLAD as defining this public policy.

The public policy against discrimination as set forth in the WLAD can form the

basis for a tort claim for wrongful discharges. See Roberts, 140 Wn.2d at 66 (statutory

policy against discrimination provides the basis for wrongful discharge claim for

employee who lacks a statutory remedy); Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., 184 Wn.2d

268, 274, 358 P.3d 1139 (2015) (“the existence of alternative statutory remedies,

regardless of whether or not they are adequate, does not prevent the plaintiff from

26
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State

bringing a wrongful discharge claim”); Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 12 Wn. App.