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

in the light most favorable to Paddock, as we must at the summary judgment stage. Paddock has

presented evidence that he testified to the best of his ability in response to a subpoena, and although

some of his answers were mistaken, he was not intentionally untruthful. If Paddock’s version of

15
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

the facts is correct, then a substantial motivating factor for his termination was his performance of

a public obligation, namely testifying truthfully to the best of his ability in response to a subpoena.

The Port’s only reason for terminating Paddock’s employment was his deposition testimony.

At trial, the Port may be able to prove that Paddock intentionally lied in the deposition. But

it is also true that Paddock may be able to prove at trial that he did not intentionally lie in the

deposition. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Port’s termination of

Paddock’s employment actually violated public policy.

The Port relies on Mackey, arguing that even if there is a genuine issue of material fact

about whether the results of its investigation were accurate, it is still entitled to summary judgment

because Paddock has not shown that the reason it gave for firing him was pretextual. The Port

relies on the reasoning in Mackey stating that the accuracy of the employer’s investigation in that

case did not matter so long as the investigation results provided the basis for the decision to

terminate employment. Thus, the Port asserts that under Mackey, it is still entitled to summary

judgment.

Mackey is distinguishable from this case because here, there is a question of fact about