Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/723421.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,737 chars

employer may prevail, for example, by proffering testimony that the employee
would have been terminated that is "corroborated both by the company policy,

which plausibly could be read to require discharge for the conduct at issue here,
and by common sense." O'Day, 79 F.3d at 762.
Here, Corbis presented substantial evidence based upon which the jury
could have rendered a verdict in its favor. Corbis's "Code of Conduct" expressly

"forbid[s] certain behaviors [] based on common sense guidelines," including (1)
"falsification or misrepresentation of company records . . . including]. . . time
reports"; (2) "[violation of any Corbis policy";13 and (3) "[a]ny activity that has an

13 Lodis's failure to record vacation time violated Corbis's time reporting policy.

-28-
             
No. 72342-1-1/29

adverse effect on the company's interests." Shenk testified that engaging in any

of these impermissible behaviors is a ground for termination at Corbis and that,

as such, he would have terminated Lodis when he learned of his failure to record

any vacation time.14 The fact that a prior jury found that Lodis's conduct

constituted a breach of his fiduciary duties of undivided loyalty and care

establishes that Lodis's actions were "adverse [to] the company's interests" and

underscores their severity and seriousness. Moreover, common sense suggests

that a CEO would terminate the highest ranking human resources officer—the

self-proclaimed "moral compass" of the company—and member of his executive

team upon discovering that the executive had failed to record a single hour of

vacation throughout the duration of his employment, despite taking more than 89