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

1,750 chars

employer's firing of the employee, we do not answer the third question regarding whether

the employer must be more motivated by the overriding justification than the public

policy violating reason for termination to prevail. We move to the fourth question of

what reasons for employment termination qualify as an overriding justification. We focus

first on the word ''justification" and will focus later on the word "overriding." Gonzaga

University justifies the firing of David Martin by his insubordination when he forwarded

41
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

his pool proposal to officials above his chain of command in violation of an order, he

abandoned his job because of anger resulting from a scolding, and he contacted university

officials in violation of his leave of absence.

Washington courts have not defined or presented a list of what constitutes a

"justification" for purposes of ending an employee's employment despite public policy

concerns. We rely on the law in other employment case settings and, in part, in other

states. The anti-retaliation law does not immunize the employee from discharge for past

or present inadequacies, unsatisfactory performance, or insubordination. Hulme v.

Barrett, 480 N.W.2d 40, 43 (Iowa 1992). An employee is bound to obey the direct order

of his or her employer or risk being discharged for insubordination. Empiregas, Inc. of

Kosciusko v. Bain, 599 So. 2d 971, 974 (Miss. 1992). Insubordination is defined as a

willful disregard of express or implied direction or a defiant attitude. Dixon v. Stoam

Industries, Inc., 216 S.W.3d 688, 693 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). A refusal to comply with a