Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc.
913 P.2d 377, 128 Wash. 2d 931, 11 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 993 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer contravenes public policy by terminating an at-will employee who violates a company work rule in order to save a person from a situation of imminent, life-threatening danger.
Facts:
- Kevin M. Gardner was employed by Loomis Armored Inc. as a driver of an armored car.
- Loomis had a fundamental and absolute company rule forbidding drivers from leaving the truck unattended under any circumstances, stating that violation would be grounds for termination.
- On March 10, 1994, while on duty, Gardner saw a bank manager running from the bank, screaming for help as she was being chased by a man with a knife.
- The manager ran past Gardner's truck and pleaded directly with him for help.
- Seeing no one else available to assist, Gardner exited the armored truck, in violation of the company rule.
- Immediately after Gardner exited, the armed suspect seized another woman, Kathy Martin, and held the knife to her throat.
- Gardner followed the suspect into the bank and, with the help of a customer, successfully disarmed the suspect while his partner provided a distraction.
- Loomis subsequently terminated Gardner's employment for the sole reason that he violated the work rule by exiting the truck.
Procedural Posture:
- Kevin M. Gardner filed a lawsuit against Loomis Armored Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
- The U.S. District Court certified a question of state law to the Supreme Court of Washington to determine if Gardner's termination violated public policy.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does it violate public policy in the State of Washington to discharge an at-will employee for violating a company rule in order to go to the assistance of a citizen who is in danger of serious physical injury or death?
Opinions:
Majority - Dolliver, J.
Yes, it violates public policy to discharge an employee for violating a company rule under these circumstances. The court adopted a four-part test for analyzing public policy wrongful discharge claims: (1) the existence of a clear public policy (clarity); (2) that discouraging the conduct would jeopardize the policy (jeopardy); (3) that the public-policy-linked conduct caused the dismissal (causation); and (4) the absence of an overriding employer justification. The court found a clear and fundamental public policy of encouraging citizens to save persons from life-threatening situations, evidenced by legal principles that subordinate criminal laws and even constitutional rights to the preservation of life. Firing Gardner for his heroic actions would jeopardize this policy. Gardner's reason for leaving the truck was inextricably linked to the act itself, satisfying causation. While Loomis's work rule serves a legitimate safety interest, it is not an overriding justification when weighed against the paramount societal value of saving a human life from imminent harm.
Dissenting - Madsen, J.
No, the termination does not violate public policy. The majority creates a public policy rather than finding a pre-existing clear mandate as required by precedent. The legal principles cited by the majority are aimed at other purposes, such as self-defense, not at encouraging citizen intervention. The Loomis work rule is a critical safety measure designed to protect employees and prevent criminals from using ruses to gain access to the truck; the rule itself promotes the policy of saving lives. Gardner had other means to summon help, such as a radio and siren. By invalidating the termination, the majority is improperly micromanaging a private employer's legitimate safety rules and misapplying the narrow public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.
Concurring - Guy, J.
Yes, the termination violates public policy, but on narrower grounds. The company work rule is not generally against public policy; it is a sensible safety measure. However, the employer's application of the rule under these specific, extreme facts was a violation of public policy. Gardner was faced with an impossible choice: adhere to the rule and watch a person be murdered, or break the rule to save a life. Any decent person would choose to save the life, and enforcing the rule to punish such an act for the 'higher good' is contrary to public policy.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the four-part Perritt test as the definitive analytical framework for public policy wrongful discharge claims in Washington. It significantly expands the public policy exception beyond traditional categories (e.g., refusing to commit a crime, exercising a legal right) to include an employee's violation of a legitimate, non-illegal work rule for a socially laudable purpose. The court's balancing of the employer's interest against the public good creates a new precedent, requiring a case-by-case analysis. While the court narrowly cabins its holding to 'life-threatening situations,' the decision opens the door for future litigation testing the boundaries of what constitutes a sufficiently strong public policy to override an employer's internal rules.
