Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2052293-4-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,716 chars

As a threshold matter, the parties dispute whether Mackey established a question of fact

as to whether she was a “whistleblower.” Home Depot argues that she failed to do so because

she raised her allegations against Krall for the first time in her response to the termination notice

4
When the employee’s case does not fit neatly within one of these scenarios, this court applies a
four-part framework articulated in Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Workplace Torts: Rights and Liabilities
(1991). Martin, 191 Wn.2d at 723. But this framework is inapplicable if a claim falls within one
of the four traditional categories. Id. at 723-24.

16
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52293-4-II

and admitted in her deposition testimony that she never complained about disability

discrimination before then.

Whistleblowing occurs “where employees are fired in retaliation for reporting employer

misconduct.” Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 184 Wn.2d 252, 259, 359 P.3d 746 (2015).

Mackey’s declaration states that she complained to Tilton before her termination that Krall had

mistreated her. As discussed above, Mackey’s declaration must be treated as true for summary

judgment purposes. Therefore, we conclude that Mackey’s wrongful discharge claim falls within

the whistleblowing category of retaliation claims.

b. Clear Mandate of Public Policy

What constitutes a clear mandate of public policy is a question of law that can be

established by statute. Martin, 191 Wn.2d at 725. We assume that Mackey’s complaint about

Krall’s conduct could be interpreted as a complaint that she was being discriminated against

because of her disability. RCW 49.60.010 states that