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

Related Parts of This Source

1,704 chars

complete copy of his personnel file following his discharge.

After extensive discovery, Gonzaga University filed a summary judgment motion

seeking dismissal of David Martin's two causes of action. When opposing the summary

judgment motion, Martin filed his own declaration. Among other testimony, Martin

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

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

posited in his declaration that "the only way to address the safety concerns for the

students was to make sure that my [his] proposal and insistence that pads be installed was

to bring it to the top." CP at 34.

In support of Gonzaga University's motion, Heather Murray, an employee in the

university's Human Resources Office, signed a declaration. A paragraph in the

declaration tersely responds to David Martin's action that the university failed to produce

his personnel file. Murray averred:

There are two separate files which are kept on employees: the
employee relations file and a personnel file.

CP at 167. The trial court granted Gonzaga University summary judgment on both of

Martin's claims.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Summary Judgment

I
We summarize familiar principles of summary judgment jurisprudence. Summary

judgment should be granted if the evidence establishes there is no genuine issue of

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR

56(c); Rujfv. County of King, 125 Wn.2d 697, 703, 887 P.2d 886 (1995). To succeed on

a summary judgment motion, the moving party must first show the absence of an issue of

material fact. Ingersoll v. DeBartolo, Inc., 123 Wn.2d 649, 654, 869 P.2d 1014 (1994).