Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,748 chars
disagree. Our Washington Supreme Court evinces a devotion to Perritt's formulation of

the tort. The employer's justification will almost always be based on economic needs. In

Gardner, the Supreme Court mentioned that some public policies are not strong enough

43
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

to warrant interfering with an "employers' personnel management." Gardner v. Loomis

Armored Inc., 128 Wn.2d at 947. The Gardner court considered the employer's need for

insurance, a selfish business need, as a justification, although the need qid not override

the relevant public policy.

The undisputed facts establish that David Martin persistently and self-interestedly

promoted himself and his thesis that sought to keep open a pool in the Rudolf Fitness

Center. The saving of the pool did not advance any public policy. While promoting this

pool, he repeatedly disobeyed directives from his superiors to follow a chain of command.

He heatedly left a meeting and then abandoned his duties to close the center. While on

leave, he disobeyed a directive not to contact employees of Gonzaga University other than

the employees in the Human Resource Office and Jose Hernandez. He telephoned and

e-mailed the Gonzaga University president, through the president's assistant. Martin's

earlier job performance evaluations showed him to lack interpersonal and professional

communication skills with coworkers, issue abrasive and insensitive written

communications, and neglect job responsibilities. Martin resented supervision. David

Martin presents no testimony that counter these facts. Martin's own written

communications establish these facts.