David Martin v. Gonzaga University
34103-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 7, 2017Background
- David Martin worked as an assistant director at Gonzaga University's Rudolf Fitness Center from 2008 until his termination in March 2012 after a series of disciplinary events (insubordination, leaving duties, contacting administrators while on leave).
- Martin repeatedly advocated installing protective padding on concrete walls behind basketball hoops, and prepared a pool/revenue proposal he claimed would fund safety improvements; he also communicated directly up the chain of command contrary to supervisors' direction.
- A student suffered a serious head injury after striking an unpadded wall days before Martin's termination; the university later commissioned a risk review and installed pads costing about $18,000.
- Gonzaga terminated Martin citing performance problems and insubordination; Martin claims the true reason was retaliation for raising student-safety concerns and (allegedly) speaking to the student newspaper.
- Martin also sued under RCW 49.12.240/.250, claiming Gonzaga failed to provide a complete copy of his personnel file; the university produced some records but its HR declaration referenced separate "employee relations" and "personnel" files without clarifying production.
- The trial court granted Gonzaga summary judgment on both claims; the Court of Appeals affirmed the wrongful-discharge dismissal but vacated and remanded the personnel-file claim for further fact development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gonzaga wrongfully discharged Martin in violation of public policy (raising student-safety concerns) | Martin says he was terminated in retaliation for advocating installation of wall padding and for communicating safety concerns (public-policy activity). | Gonzaga says termination was justified by repeated insubordination, poor performance, abandoning duties, and violation of leave rules. | Summary judgment for Gonzaga affirmed: although student safety is a cognizable public policy and questions exist on causation/jeopardy, undisputed facts show insubordination as an overriding justification that defeats the claim. |
| Nature and proof of the "absence of overriding justification" element (who bears burden; must justification motivate firing; how to weigh policy vs. business interest) | Martin implies the University must prove its asserted reason did not motivate termination or cannot justify firing. | Gonzaga contends its insubordination-based justification overcomes any claim even if safety advocacy played a role. | Court explains: employer need not prove the justification motivated the firing; an overriding legitimate business justification (here, insubordination) can defeat liability even if retaliation was a substantial factor. The court weighs policy vs employer interest in context and treats the final element as one that can be resolved as a matter of law on undisputed facts. |
| Whether Gonzaga violated RCW 49.12.240/.250 by failing to produce Martin's complete personnel file | Martin asserts Gonzaga withheld records (employee-relations file or other documents) and thus violated statutory inspection/production obligations. | Gonzaga produced some documents but HR testimony did not affirmatively state all files were produced and referenced separate files (personnel vs employee relations). | Summary judgment on this claim vacated and remanded: factual gaps in the record (what files exist, what was produced, whether withheld records are part of "personnel file") require further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. Loomis Armored, 128 Wn.2d 931 (1996) (adopts four-element test for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and explains weighing of public policy against employer interests)
- Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross, 184 Wn.2d 300 (2015) (reiterates Perritt four-element framework and discusses causation standard)
- Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., 184 Wn.2d 268 (2015) (clarifies jeopardy element and overruling of prior requirement regarding availability of statutory remedies)
- Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612 (1989) (explains requirement that public policy be judicially or legislatively recognized)
- Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 118 Wn.2d 46 (1991) (discusses circumstantial proof of causation and temporal proximity)