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

1,740 chars

A federal court, applying Iowa law, recognized the four element Henry H. Perritt

Jr. test, including the fourth element of overriding justification. Raymond v. US.A.

Healthcare Center-Fort Dodge, LLC, 468 F. Supp. 2d at 1058-59. Nevertheless, the

court collapsed the overriding justification element into the causation element. The court

reasoned that whether or not the employer had adequate alternative justifications for its

action is necessarily relevant to whether or not the adverse action against the plaintiff was

"caused" by the plaintiffs protected activity.

The Raymond court's reasoning conflicts with our determination that the

40
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

overriding justification need not be a motivating factor. Nevertheless, we observe that the

Washington Supreme Court holds fast to Gardner's and Perritt's four elements of

wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, including the overriding justification

element. Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross, 184 Wn.2d 300 (2015); Rose v. Anderson Hay

& Grain Co., 184 Wn.2d 268 (2015); Becker v. Community Health Systems, Inc., 184

Wn.2d 252 (2015). Since the overriding justification element must be met in addition to

the element of causation, even if advocating a public policy was a substantial cause of the

termination, the employer avoids liability if another reason justified termination from

employment. The employee showing retaliation as a substantial factor may not suffice.

Otherwise, Washington would not insist on the fourth discrete element of overriding

justification.

Since we conclude that the overriding justification need not motivate the