Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 56466-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

are superfluous.’” Johnson v. Lake Cushman Maint. Co., 5 Wn. App. 2d 765, 776, 425 P.3d 560

(2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nelson v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 198 Wn.

App. 101, 109, 392 P.3d 1138 (2017)). Therefore, we do not address the trial court’s findings of

fact. Id.

I. WRONGFUL DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

Paddock argues that there is a genuine question of material fact about whether the Port

discharged him in violation of public policy. First, he contends that it is a violation of public policy

to terminate an employee for performing a public duty, so the Port’s decision to terminate him for

testifying to the best of his ability in response to a subpoena was unlawful. Second, he contends

that it is a violation of public policy to terminate an employee for exercising a legal right, and “he

10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

was exercising a legal right . . . by filing grievances against Port management.” Appellant’s

Opening Br. at 41. Paddock emphasizes that he does not claim to have been whistleblowing. We

agree with Paddock that the trial court erred in dismissing his wrongful discharge in violation of

public policy claim.

A. Wrongful Discharge Framework

Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is a tort that encourages “both employers

and employees to follow the law.” Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., 184 Wn.2d 268, 275, 358

P.3d 1139 (2015). The public policy the employee identifies must “be judicially or legislatively

recognized,” id. at 276, and it may arise from state or federal law. See Sedlacek v. Hillis, 145

Wn.2d 379, 392, 36 P.3d 1014 (2001). The requirement that the public “policy be judicially or