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

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/341038_pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,794 chars

wrongful discharge when the employee sought to further his own welfare in addition to

the public welfare. Issues of fact lie as to whether Martin also sought to benefit students

and the university at large.

Jeopardy Element

The jeopardy element of the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public

policy has undergone modifications in recent years. Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross, 184

Wn.2d 300 (2015); Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., 184 Wn.2d 268, 358 P.3d 1139

(2015); Becker v. Community Health Systems, Inc:, 182 Wn. App. 935, 332 P.3d 1085

29
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

(2014), aff'd, 184 Wn.2d 252,359 P.3d 746 (2015). In Rickman, Rose, and Becker, the

Supreme Court returned to the original formulation of the element as requiring a plaintiff

to prove either his or her conduct directly related to the public policy or the conduct was

necessary for the effective enforcement of that policy. Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross,

184 Wn.2d at 31 O; Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d at 945. When a direct

relationship holds between the employee's conduct and the public policy, the employer's

discharge of the employee for engaging in that conduct inherently implicates the public

policy. Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain. Co., 184 Wn.2d at 284.

In Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., 184 Wn.2d at 281 (2015), our Supreme

Court disavowed the former rule that a plaintiff must establish the inadequacy of other

remedies in the alternative to a civil suit for damages in order to meet the jeopardy

element of the tort for wrongful discharge against public policy. The high court thereby

overruled Hubbard v. Spokane County, 146 Wn.2d 699, 50 P.3d 602 (2002); Cudney v.