Martin v. Gonzaga Univ.
191 Wash. 2d 712
| Wash. | 2018Background
- David Martin was an at-will assistant director at Gonzaga University's Rudolf Fitness Center and was terminated in March 2012 for alleged insubordination and poor performance.
- Prior to termination Martin had submitted a proposal (record not in evidence) and complained internally about various safety issues; he later alleged these included concerns about lack of wall padding in the basketball courts.
- Gonzaga placed Martin on administrative leave after an incident where he acted disrespectfully in a meeting, left his shift without permission, and contacted higher administrators contrary to directions. A student concussion occurred days later; Gonzaga fired Martin citing performance and insubordination.
- Martin sued for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (whistle-blowing) and for violation of RCW 49.12.250 (failure to provide a complete personnel file). Gonzaga moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment on wrongful discharge but remanded the personnel-file claim. Washington Supreme Court granted review on both the applicability of the Perritt test and justiciability of the personnel-file claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Perritt four-factor test applies to Martin's whistle-blower wrongful discharge claim | Perritt test applied by Court of Appeals; should govern analysis | Perritt does not apply to claims that fall within the established whistle-blower wrongful discharge category | Perritt does not apply; Thompson/Wilmot standard governs whistle-blower claims |
| Whether Martin established a public-policy wrongful discharge (whistle-blower) claim | Martin argues he engaged in protected whistle-blowing about student safety (wall padding) and was fired in retaliation | Gonzaga contends no clear public policy/statute required padding, and termination was for insubordination and poor performance | Martin failed to show a clear public policy and no sufficient evidence that whistle-blowing was a substantial factor; summary judgment for Gonzaga affirmed |
| Whether the after-acquired-evidence doctrine or "overriding justification" can bar liability when misconduct was not the motivating reason for discharge | Martin: after-acquired-evidence limits remedies, not liability; cannot be used to avoid liability where it did not motivate the firing | Gonzaga/Court of Appeals: argued employer justification (insubordination) can override public-policy interest even if discovered after the fact | Supreme Court rejects applying the after-acquired-evidence doctrine to negate liability; doctrine limits remedies but does not fit the overriding-justification balancing test |
| Whether Martin's RCW 49.12.250 personnel-file claim is justiciable now | Martin pursued claim in court alleging incomplete personnel file delivery | Gonzaga argues DLI has primary administrative enforcement and Martin must seek administrative remedy first | Claim not justiciable because Martin did not pursue administrative remedies with Department of Labor & Industries; summary judgment for Gonzaga affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219 (recognition of wrongful discharge tort in violation of public policy)
- Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 118 Wn.2d 46 (framework for causation and burden-shifting in whistle-blower discharge claims)
- Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931 (adoption of Perritt four-factor test for nontraditional wrongful discharge claims)
- Becker v. Community Health Sys., Inc., 184 Wn.2d 252 (clarifying Perritt is for claims that do not fit the four conventional categories)
- Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., 184 Wn.2d 268 (same clarification about Perritt's limited application)
- Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross, 184 Wn.2d 300 (placing burden on employer to show termination justified by overriding consideration)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ'g Co., 513 U.S. 352 (after-acquired-evidence doctrine limits remedies but does not eliminate liability)
- Farnam v. CRISTA Ministries, 116 Wn.2d 659 (focus on employer wrongdoing in whistle-blower context)