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

Related Parts of This Source

1,767 chars

the employee. Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross, 184 Wn.2d at 314.

Ordinarily, the prima facie case must, in the nature of things, be shown by

31
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

circumstantial evidence, since the employer is not apt to announce retaliation as his

motive. Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp., 118 Wn.2d at 69. Proximity in

time between the public-policy-linked conduct and the firing coupled with evidence of

satisfactory work performance and supervisory evaluations may be persuasive in

establishing causation. Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp., 118 Wn.2d at

69. Whether a plaintiff satisfied the causation element is a question of fact. Havens v.

C&D Plastics, Inc., 124 Wn.2d 158, 177-79, 876 P.2d 435 (1994).

We recognize an issue of fact as to whether Gonzaga University terminated David

Martin's employment because of his advocacy of student safety. Martin testified that

Chris Standiford told him that one of the reasons for the firing was the rumor that Martin

afforded the student newspaper information about student injuries. Martin did not assert

this factual claim for the first time in this suit. In his March 3 0, 2012, letter to Gonzaga

University President Thayne McCulloh and Athletics Director Mike Roth, Martin

mentioned his termination being based in part on rumors of his conveyance of evidence of

student injuries. Reasonable inferences from the evidence support a finding that the

university fired Martin not simply for speaking to the press, but also because the content

of his leak concerned padding in the fieldhouse.

Gonzaga University characterizes David Martin's theory of the leaking rumor as