Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co.
184 Wash. 2d 268
Wash.2015Background
- Charles Rose, a long‑haul truck driver, was fired after refusing his supervisor’s instruction to falsify drive‑time records and exceed federally mandated hours (49 C.F.R. § 395.3(b)(1)).
- Rose sued administratively under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), 49 U.S.C. § 31105, but his federal suit was dismissed for failing to first file with the Secretary of Labor; the 180‑day administrative filing period then lapsed.
- Rose filed a common‑law wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim in state court; the trial court (and Court of Appeals on review) dismissed it, reasoning that the STAA’s administrative remedies precluded the tort claim.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review (consolidated with similar cases) to resolve whether the existence of nonexclusive statutory remedies (and their adequacy) bars a wrongful discharge tort claim.
- The Court concluded that the prior “adequacy of alternative remedies” component of the jeopardy element is incorrect and harmful, that only exclusivity/preemption (express or implied) can bar the common‑law tort, and that Rose’s tort claim survives summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the existence of STAA administrative remedies bars a common‑law wrongful discharge claim | Rose: statutory remedies do not preclude the tort; STAA contains a nonpreemption clause so common‑law relief remains available | Anderson Hay: availability of comprehensive statutory remedies (STAA) is an adequate alternative and thus precludes the tort under the jeopardy analysis | The Court held alternative statutory remedies do not bar the tort unless the statute expressly or impliedly makes its remedy exclusive; the adequacy requirement is rejected |
| Whether the "adequacy of alternative remedies" is a required component of the jeopardy element | Rose: adequacy inquiry is improper; common law is independent and should not be subordinated to myriad statutes | Anderson Hay: adequacy requirement preserves narrowness of the tort and prevents duplication of remedies | The Court rejected and overruled precedent to the extent it required an adequacy inquiry, reinstating Thompson/Gardner framework |
| Proper analytical framework for the jeopardy element of the tort | Rose: adhere to Thompson/Gardner/Wilmot (clarity, jeopardy, causation, absence of justification) and use exclusivity/preemption analysis for statutes | Anderson Hay: follow Hubbard/Korslund/Cudney which add a strict adequacy test assessing statutory schemes | The Court reaffirmed Thompson/Gardner/Wilmot; courts should assess exclusivity/preemption, not adequacy, when evaluating statutory alternatives |
| Whether Rose's conduct satisfies the tort's elements | Rose: refusal to commit an illegal act (falsifying records / exceeding hours) directly implicates a clear, legislatively recognized public policy | Anderson Hay: statutory remedies under STAA adequately protect the public policy so tort unavailable | The Court held Rose fits the classic category (refusing to commit illegal act), met prima facie burden; STAA’s nonpreemption clause confirms the tort is not precluded and Rose’s claim survives summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219 (1984) (recognized tort as narrow exception to at‑will employment; burden‑shifting on clear public policy)
- Wilmot v. Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Corp., 118 Wn.2d 46 (1991) (clarified exclusivity analysis re: statutory remedies)
- Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931 (1996) (adopted four‑part Perritt framework: clarity, jeopardy, causation, absence of justification)
- Hubbard v. Spokane County, 146 Wn.2d 699 (2002) (introduced inquiry into adequacy of statutory alternatives)
- Korslund v. DynCorp Tri‑Cities Servs., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 168 (2005) (held robust federal statutory scheme can preclude tort under adequacy analysis)
- Cudney v. ALSCO, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 524 (2011) (applied strict adequacy standard; statute adequate to vindicate policy so tort barred)
- Piel v. City of Federal Way, 177 Wn.2d 604 (2013) (recognized statutes that state their remedies are supplemental weigh against adequacy findings)
- Smith v. Bates Tech. Coll., 139 Wn.2d 793 (2000) (common‑law wrongful discharge exists alongside statutory/regulatory schemes unless legislature clearly intended otherwise)