jeopardy analysis in Washington

2011Inc., 165 Wash.2d 200, 222 , 193 P.3d 128 (2008)). ¶ 47 This argument misapprehends the focus of the jeopardy analysis in determining *256 whether a public policy tort claim will lie.

2011Br. at 37 (quoting Danny v. Laidlaw Transit Servs., Inc., 165 Wn.2d 200, 222 , 193 P.3d 128 (2008)). ¶47 This argument misapprehends the focus of the jeopardy analysis in determining whether a public policy tort claim will lie.

2015When the statute that declares the public policy also creates a remedy, the focus of the jeopardy analysis has centered on the adequacy of that remedy. 6 See Korslund v. DynCorp Tri-Cities Servs., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 168, 182-83 , 125 P.3d 119 (2005); Cudney v. ALSCO, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 524, 531-33 , 259 P.3d 244 (2011); Hubbard v. Spokane County, 146 Wn.2d 699, 717 , 50 P.3d 602 (2002). ¶46 “[T]his court has repeatedly applied [a] strict adequacy standard, holding that a tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy should be precluded unless the public policy is inadequately promoted thr

2015When the statute that declares the public policy also creates a remedy, the focus of the jeopardy analysis has centered on the adequacy of that remedy. 2 See Korslund v. DynCorp Tri-Cities Servs., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 168, 182-83 , 125 P.3d 119 (2005); Cudney v. ALSCO, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 524, 531-33 , 259 P.3d 244 (2011); Hubbard v. Spokane County, 146 Wn.2d 699, 717 , 50 P.3d 602 (2002). 2 The question of whether an adequate alternative remedy exists presents a question of law where the inquiry is limited to examining existing laws to determine if they provide an adequate alternative means of promoti

2011Inc., 165 Wash.2d 200, 222 , 193 P.3d 128 (2008)). ¶ 47 This argument misapprehends the focus of the jeopardy analysis in determining *256 whether a public policy tort claim will lie.

2011Br. at 37 (quoting Danny v. Laidlaw Transit Servs., Inc., 165 Wn.2d 200, 222 , 193 P.3d 128 (2008)). ¶47 This argument misapprehends the focus of the jeopardy analysis in determining whether a public policy tort claim will lie.

2015When the statute that declares the public policy also creates a remedy, the focus of the jeopardy analysis has centered on the adequacy of that remedy. 6 See Korslund v. DynCorp Tri-Cities Servs., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 168, 182-83 , 125 P.3d 119 (2005); Cudney v. ALSCO, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 524, 531-33 , 259 P.3d 244 (2011); Hubbard v. Spokane County, 146 Wn.2d 699, 717 , 50 P.3d 602 (2002). ¶46 “[T]his court has repeatedly applied [a] strict adequacy standard, holding that a tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy should be precluded unless the public policy is inadequately promoted thr

2015When the statute that declares the public policy also creates a remedy, the focus of the jeopardy analysis has centered on the adequacy of that remedy. 2 See Korslund v. DynCorp Tri-Cities Servs., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 168, 182-83 , 125 P.3d 119 (2005); Cudney v. ALSCO, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 524, 531-33 , 259 P.3d 244 (2011); Hubbard v. Spokane County, 146 Wn.2d 699, 717 , 50 P.3d 602 (2002). 2 The question of whether an adequate alternative remedy exists presents a question of law where the inquiry is limited to examining existing laws to determine if they provide an adequate alternative means of promoti

2015When the statute that declares the public policy also creates a remedy, the focus of the jeopardy analysis has centered on the adequacy of that remedy. 6 See Korslund v. DynCorp Tri-Cities Servs., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 168, 182-83 , 125 P.3d 119 (2005); Cudney v. ALSCO, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 524, 531-33 , 259 P.3d 244 (2011); Hubbard v. Spokane County, 146 Wn.2d 699, 717 , 50 P.3d 602 (2002). ¶46 “[T]his court has repeatedly applied [a] strict adequacy standard, holding that a tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy should be precluded unless the public policy is inadequately promoted thr

2015When the statute that declares the public policy also creates a remedy, the focus of the jeopardy analysis has centered on the adequacy of that remedy. 2 See Korslund v. DynCorp Tri-Cities Servs., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 168, 182-83 , 125 P.3d 119 (2005); Cudney v. ALSCO, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 524, 531-33 , 259 P.3d 244 (2011); Hubbard v. Spokane County, 146 Wn.2d 699, 717 , 50 P.3d 602 (2002). 2 The question of whether an adequate alternative remedy exists presents a question of law where the inquiry is limited to examining existing laws to determine if they provide an adequate alternative means of promoti

2011Id. at 945, 913 P.2d 377 (first alteration in original) (internal citation omitted). ¶ 30 This language is a paraphrase of Perritt's treatise (1991), which clearly states the jeopardy analysis in the disjunctive, i.e., the conduct furthers public policy either because the policy directly promotes the conduct or because the conduct is necessary to effective enforcement of the policy.

2001The Court of Appeals next considered the second element, the jeopardy test: "The plaintiffs must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged would jeopardize the public policy." The purpose of the jeopardy element is to guarantee "an employer's personnel management decisions will not be challenged unless a public policy is genuinely threatened." Gardner, 128 Wash.2d at 941-42 , 913 P.2d 377 .

2008Disposal Co., 124 Wash.2d 656 , 880 P.2d 988 (1994) (statute forbids employer retaliation against employees who assert right to overtime pay); Wilmot, 118 Wash.2d 46 , 821 P.2d 988 (statute forbids employment discrimination against employees who file a worker's compensation claim); Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wash.2d 912 , 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (statute defines age discrimination as an unfair employment practice). ś57 In such instances, the legal component of the jeopardy analysis is whether the remedies provided by the legislature adequately protect the public policy.

2008Disposal Co., 124 Wn.2d 656 , 880 P.2d 988 (1994) (statute forbids employer retaliation against employees who assert right to overtime pay); Wilmot, 118 Wn.2d 46 (statute forbids employment discrimination against employees who file a workers’ compensation claim); Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wn.2d 912 , 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (statute defines age discrimination as an unfair employment practice). ¶57 In such instances, the legal component of the jeopardy analysis is whether the remedies provided by the legislature adequately protect the public policy.

2008Disposal Co., 124 Wash.2d 656 , 880 P.2d 988 (1994) (statute forbids employer retaliation against employees who assert right to overtime pay); Wilmot, 118 Wash.2d 46 , 821 P.2d 988 (statute forbids employment discrimination against employees who file a worker's compensation claim); Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wash.2d 912 , 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (statute defines age discrimination as an unfair employment practice). ś57 In such instances, the legal component of the jeopardy analysis is whether the remedies provided by the legislature adequately protect the public policy.

2008Disposal Co., 124 Wn.2d 656 , 880 P.2d 988 (1994) (statute forbids employer retaliation against employees who assert right to overtime pay); Wilmot, 118 Wn.2d 46 (statute forbids employment discrimination against employees who file a workers’ compensation claim); Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wn.2d 912 , 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (statute defines age discrimination as an unfair employment practice). ¶57 In such instances, the legal component of the jeopardy analysis is whether the remedies provided by the legislature adequately protect the public policy.

2008Disposal Co., 124 Wn.2d 656 , 880 P.2d 988 (1994) (statute forbids employer retaliation against employees who assert right to overtime pay); Wilmot, 118 Wn.2d 46 (statute forbids employment discrimination against employees who file a workers’ compensation claim); Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wn.2d 912 , 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (statute defines age discrimination as an unfair employment practice). ¶57 In such instances, the legal component of the jeopardy analysis is whether the remedies provided by the legislature adequately protect the public policy.

2008Disposal Co., 124 Wn.2d 656 , 880 P.2d 988 (1994) (statute forbids employer retaliation against employees who assert right to overtime pay); Wilmot, 118 Wn.2d 46 (statute forbids employment discrimination against employees who file a workers’ compensation claim); Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wn.2d 912 , 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (statute defines age discrimination as an unfair employment practice). ¶57 In such instances, the legal component of the jeopardy analysis is whether the remedies provided by the legislature adequately protect the public policy.

2001The Court of Appeals next considered the second element, the jeopardy test: "The plaintiffs must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged would jeopardize the public policy." The purpose of the jeopardy element is to guarantee "an employer's personnel management decisions will not be challenged unless a public policy is genuinely threatened." Gardner, 128 Wash.2d at 941-42 , 913 P.2d 377 .

2000The Court of Appeals next considered the second element, the jeopardy test: “The plaintiffs must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged would jeopardize the public policy.” The purpose of the jeopardy element is to guarantee “an employer’s personnel management decisions will not be challenged unless a public policy is genuinely threatened.” Gardner, 128 Wn.2d at 941-42 .

2015We said, “[W]e should not reach to expand the jeopardy analysis of Korslund or Cudney when the very statutory scheme that announces the public policy at issue also cautions that its administrative remedies are intended to be additional to other remedies.” Piel, 177 Wn.2d at 617 .

2015Rose, 184 Wn.2d at 282, 286 ; Becker, 184 Wn.2d at 258 ; see also Wilmot v. Kaiser Alum. & Chem.

2014Id. at 787-89 . ¶33 The jeopardy analysis in Mr. Becker’s case “proceeds from the proposition that permitting such dismissals would encourage conduct in violation of [criminal laws], because employers could shield themselves from detection.” Perritt, Employee Dismissal, supra, § 7.06, at 7-72.

2013As examples, the majority refers to Smith’s discussion of Reninger v. Department of Corrections, 134 Wn.2d 437 , 951 P.2d 782 (1998), and Christensen v. Grant County Hospital District No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299 , 96 P.3d 957 (2004).

2013As examples, the majority refers to Smith’s discussion of Reninger v. Department of Corrections, 134 Wn.2d 437 , 951 P.2d 782 (1998), and Christensen v. Grant County Hospital District No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299 , 96 P.3d 957 (2004).

2013As examples, the majority refers to Smith’s discussion of Reninger v. Department of Corrections, 134 Wn.2d 437 , 951 P.2d 782 (1998), and Christensen v. Grant County Hospital District No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299 , 96 P.3d 957 (2004).

2013As examples, the majority refers to Smith’s discussion of Reninger v. Department of Corrections, 134 Wn.2d 437 , 951 P.2d 782 (1998), and Christensen v. Grant County Hospital District No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299 , 96 P.3d 957 (2004).

2008Disposal Co., 124 Wash.2d 656 , 880 P.2d 988 (1994) (statute forbids employer retaliation against employees who assert right to overtime pay); Wilmot, 118 Wash.2d 46 , 821 P.2d 988 (statute forbids employment discrimination against employees who file a worker's compensation claim); Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wash.2d 912 , 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (statute defines age discrimination as an unfair employment practice). ś57 In such instances, the legal component of the jeopardy analysis is whether the remedies provided by the legislature adequately protect the public policy.