Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,770 chars

displayed [sic] great work ethics and at other times he would not. This up
and down behavior and conduct was a surprise and uncharacteristic of him.

CP at 128. In addition, the review commented that Martin did an excellent job

developing and implementing a training program for lifeguards. No supervisor signed the

April 2011 performance review.

Rudolf Fitness Center Assistant Athletics Director Jose Hernandez and David

Martin exchanged e-mails following the April 28, 2011 performance review. In one

e-mail, Hernandez posed two questions to Martin. Hernandez asked Martin how the latter

could improve his performance to advance the interests of the fitness center. The second

question asked Martin how other Rudolf Fitness Center staff needed to change or

improve. Martin's response focused on his desire to develop a pool program, his

dissatisfaction with resistance to change from others, and a lack of teamwork among staff.

Martin did not mention any student safety concerns related to the lack of protective

padding in the basketball courts.

In a document dated August 16, 2011, an anonymous author, perhaps Jose

Hernandez, summarized in writing David Martin's April 2011 review. The document

lacks a header. The author identified four deficiencies in Martin's work performance and

correlating expectations and goals. The four highlighted deficits were a lack of

interpersonal and professional communication skills with coworkers, a lack of teamwork,

7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 34103-8-111
Martin v. Gonzaga University

abrasive and insensitive written communications, and a neglect of job responsibilities.

After David Martin's April 28, 2011 performance review, Rudolf Fitness Center