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

1,715 chars
final question. We affirm the trial court on the basis that David Martin presents no issues

of fact defeating Gonzaga University's overriding justification.

The facts before the court present two lines of conduct of David Martin that

sometimes intertwined yet presented distinct grounds for the termination of Martin's

employment. On the one hand, Martin sought to procure padding for the basketball walls

in order to promote student safety. Student safety is an important public policy.

Nevertheless, the evidence is vague and often disputed as to when and how Martin

51
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

advocated the padding. In the days before his termination from employment, the record

shows no advocacy of safety for students. Other employees also alerted the

administration to the danger of the unpadded walls. Others may not have expressed

safety concerns to the Gonzaga Bulletin, but the Bulletin published its article after the

dismissal of Martin from employment. The university consulted an expert, who

recommended the addition of padding. The university eventually installed the padding.

The undisputed facts establish that David Martin promoted himself and his thesis

that sought to keep a pool in the Rudolf Fitness Center open. The saving of the pool did

not advance any public policy. Martin did not wish to conform to a chain of command

when espousing his proposal because he thought only he could properly present his

proposal and he did not want anyone to steal his golden ticket. While promoting this

pool, he repeatedly disobeyed directives from his superiors. When told to attend a