302 P.3d 500
Wash. Ct. App.2013Background
- SVR owner Clapp allegedly pressured four longtime employees to provide false testimony for a Maple View Farms lawsuit.
- Employees Barnett, Victor Gonzalez, Mario Gonzalez, and Octavio Gonzalez resigned in September 2004 due to coercive conduct.
- Plaintiffs filed suit for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy on September 17, 2007.
- SVR moved for summary judgment arguing statute of limitations, failure to exhaust internal procedures, and lack of intolerable conditions; trial court denied.
- Jury eventually found constructive wrongful discharge and awarded $427,230 in damages; SVR appeals on limitations, jury instructions, and sufficiency of the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statute of limitations barred the constructive discharge claim | Barnett et al. timely filed within three years | SVR contends accrual earlier; time-bar | No; claims timely filed within three years |
| Whether the jury instructions properly stated constructive discharge elements | Actual elements supported by law; no error | Instructions misstate requirements | Instructions correct; valid four-element constructively wrongful discharge standard |
| Whether internal procedures instruction was preserved and should have been given | Not explicitly preserved; Barnett did not pursue | Should have been given to deem resignation voluntary | Issue not preserved for review; no reversible error |
| Whether the public policy instruction correctly stated law and did not require criminal statute scope | Interfering with truthful testimony violates public policy | Public policy mischaracterized; not recognized for conduct here | Public policy instruction proper; no error in scope or necessity of criminal-statute detailing |
Key Cases Cited
- Douchette v. Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403, 117 Wn.2d 805 (Wash. 1991) (discharge accrual tied to notice or last day of work)
- Snyder v. Med. Serv. Corp. of E. Wash., 145 Wn.2d 233 (Wash. 2001) (constructive discharge recognized; express or constructive discharge)
- Korslund v. DynCorp Tri-Cities Servs., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 168 (Wash. 2005) (public policy constructive discharge recognized)
- Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931 (Wash. 1996) (public policy scope includes whistleblowing and reporting misconduct)
- Danny v. Laidlaw Transit Servs., Inc., 165 Wn.2d 200 (Wash. 2008) (discussion of public policy boundaries in wrongful discharge)
- Haubry v. Snow, 106 Wn. App. 666 (Wash. App. 2001) (establishes four-element test for constructive discharge)