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

1,736 chars

fulfills the clarity element and a question of fact remains as to the jeopardy and causation

elements, the burden shifts to the employer to show an overriding justification for the

employee's discharge. Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross, 184 Wn.2d at 314; Hubbardv.

Spokane County, 146 Wn.2d at 718 (2002).

The Washington rule in wrongful discharge cases may eventually follow the rules

of persuasion in employment discrimination and retaliation cases. According to

Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 178 Wn. App. 850, 873, 316 P.3d 520 (2013):

An employee claiming discrimination must first prove a prima facie
case of discrimination and, if he or she does so, then the burden shifts to the
employer to present evidence suggesting a nondiscriminatory reason for
[the termination]. If the employer sustains its burden, the employee must
then demonstrate that the reasons given by the employer are pretext for
discrimination.

(Alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); See also Renz v.

37
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

Spokane Eye Clinic, PS, 114 Wn. App. 611, 618, 60 P.3d 106 (2002). Accordingly, the

employer may carry the burden of producing some evidence of an overriding justification,

at which time the burden returns to the employee to prove by a preponderance of evidence

that the employer's stated reason is a pretext or the stated reason does not override the

public policy violated by the discharge. Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross, one of a triad of

recent high court decisions, does not discuss whether the burden returns to the employee

once the employer posits an overriding justification.