Martin v. Gonzaga Univ.
425 P.3d 837, 191 Wash. 2d 712 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The four-part Perritt test for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy does not apply to whistle-blower claims, which fall under a recognized category of wrongful discharge; instead, such claims are governed by the Thompson/Wilmot test. For statutory personnel file claims, an employee must exhaust administrative remedies with the Department of Labor and Industries before the claim is justiciable in court.
Facts:
- Gonzaga University opened the Rudolf Fitness Center in 2003, which lacked wall padding in the basketball field house, a safety concern that had been discussed by university staff since 2004.
- David Martin was hired in 2008 as an at-will assistant director of the fitness center and was supervised by Jose Hernandez, who reported up a chain of command.
- Martin's April 2011 job evaluation rated him below average for interpersonal skills, problem solving, professional development, and leadership, noting "inconsistent performance" and "up and down behavior."
- In February 2012, Martin wrote a proposal for his master's degree program, which he alleged included a swimming program to generate funds for wall padding, and he emailed this proposal directly to Chris Standiford, senior associate athletics director, bypassing his immediate supervisors.
- On March 1, 2012, Martin was reprimanded for insubordination during a meeting with Hernandez and Joel Morgan, acted disrespectfully, interrupted Hernandez, and subsequently left his shift early without receiving permission.
- Martin was placed on administrative leave on March 2, 2012, with terms prohibiting him from contacting anyone at the university except human resources staff and Hernandez, which he immediately violated by contacting the university president.
- On March 7, 2012, a student sustained a concussion and needed stitches after running into a bare concrete wall in the fitness center's basketball court.
- On March 8, 2012, Gonzaga University terminated Martin's employment, citing his failure to correct past performance issues and insubordination, though Martin alleged Standiford told him one reason was the belief that Martin had given information about student injuries to the university newspaper.
Procedural Posture:
- David Martin sued Gonzaga University in trial court, bringing a common law claim for wrongful discharge and a statutory claim under RCW 49.12.250 for failure to provide a complete personnel file.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Gonzaga University and dismissed both of Martin's claims.
- Martin appealed the trial court's decision to the Washington Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful termination claim but vacated the dismissal of the personnel file claim and remanded it for further proceedings.
- Martin (Petitioner) petitioned the Washington Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals' ruling on the wrongful discharge claim.
- Gonzaga University (Respondent) cross-petitioned for review on the Court of Appeals' ruling on the personnel file claim.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review of both petitions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the four-part Perritt test apply to an employee's wrongful termination claim based on whistle-blowing, or is a different standard applicable? 2. Is an employee's statutory claim alleging an incomplete personnel file justiciable in court without first pursuing administrative remedies with the Department of Labor and Industries?
Opinions:
Majority - Owens, J.
No, the four-part Perritt test does not apply to Martin's wrongful termination claim because it falls under the recognized category of whistle-blowing wrongful discharge claims; instead, the Thompson and Wilmot test applies. The court affirmed that Martin's wrongful discharge claim fails under the correct Thompson/Wilmot standard because he did not establish a clear mandate of public policy regarding wall padding, nor did he demonstrate that his alleged whistle-blowing was a significant factor in his termination. The court reasoned that Martin failed the first step of the Thompson/Wilmot test by not pointing to a clear mandate of public policy (e.g., statute, regulation, or judicial decision) requiring wall padding, as his mere opinion was insufficient. Even if he had, he failed the second step, as there was insufficient evidence to show his alleged whistle-blowing was a significant factor in his termination, given ample evidence of his insubordination and poor performance. The court further clarified that for the Perritt test, an employer does not need to concede the first three elements before asserting an overriding justification, the burden of proof for the overriding justification element rests with the employer, and the after-acquired-evidence doctrine does not apply to the overriding justification element of the Perritt test, as it limits damages rather than liability. No, Martin's statutory claim regarding his personnel file is not yet justiciable because the relevant statutes (RCW 49.12.240 and RCW 49.12.250) are part of the industrial welfare chapter, for which the Department of Labor and Industries (DLI) has enforcement authority. Therefore, Martin must first pursue an administrative request through DLI before seeking a judicial remedy from the court, which he had not done.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the Perritt test in Washington, confining its use to novel wrongful discharge claims that do not fit into the four established public policy categories, thereby reaffirming the direct application of the Thompson/Wilmot framework for whistle-blower cases. It provides important guidance on the employer's burden for the 'overriding justification' element of the Perritt test (if applicable) and definitively rejects the application of the after-acquired-evidence doctrine to limit liability in wrongful discharge cases. For future litigants, the ruling underscores the necessity of establishing a clear public policy rooted in statute, regulation, or judicial decision for wrongful discharge claims and highlights the procedural requirement of exhausting administrative remedies for certain statutory claims before seeking judicial intervention.
