public policy exception in Washington

2017A wrongful discharge in violation of a public policy claim has four elements: (1) The plaintiffs must prove the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element). (2) The plaintiffs must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element). (3) The plaintiffs must prove that the public-policy-linked conduct caused the dismissal (the causation element). (4) The defendant must not be able to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal (the absence of justification element).126] "To establish jeopardy, the plaintiff mus

2017A wrongful discharge in violation of a public policy claim has four elements: (1) The plaintiffs must prove the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element). (2) The plaintiffs must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element). (3) The plaintiffs must prove that the public-policy-linked conduct caused the dismissal (the causation element). (4) The defendant must not be able to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal (the absence of justification element).126] "To establish jeopardy, the plaintiff mus

2011Though Roe claims the divergence between Washington’s MUMA and federal drug law is of no consequence to a state tort claim for wrongful discharge, the two cannot be completely separated. 10 Holding that a broad public policy exists that would require an employer to allow an employee to engage in illegal activity would not be within Thompson’s directive to “ ‘proceed cautiously’ ” when finding a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. 102 Wn.2d at 232 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Parnar, 652 P.2d at 631 ). ¶41 Roe has presented only one public policy argument to support her w

2004Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219 , 685 P.2d 1081 (1984), the Supreme Court recognized the tort of wrongful discharge in contravention of a clear mandate of public policy: We believe that this narrow public policy exception should be adopted because it properly balances the interest of both the employer and employee.

2009Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, Int'l Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of Am., 461 U.S. 757, 766 , 103 S.Ct. 2177, 2183 , 76 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983); see, e.g., Newsday, Inc. v. Long Island Typographical Union, No. 915, 915 F.2d 840, 844-45 (2d Cir.1990) (arbitration decision reinstating employee who sexually harassed co-workers should be vacated as contrary to public policy against sexual harassment). ¶ 25 The public policy exception is particularly important in cases such as this where courts are asked to review arbitration decisions involving public officials.

2009Ed. 2d 298 (1983); see, e.g., Newsday, Inc. v. Long Island Typographical Union, No. 915, 915 F.2d 840, 844-45 (2d Cir. 1990) (arbitration decision reinstating employee who sexually harassed co-workers should be vacated as contrary to public policy against sexual harassment). ¶23 The public policy exception is particularly important in cases such as this where courts are asked to review arbitration decisions involving public officials.

2002See Smith v. *1227 Bates Technical Coll., 139 Wash.2d 793 , 991 P.2d 1135 (2000) (public policy exception to "for-cause" employees); Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (discharge of armored truck driver who abandoned post to prevent murder violated public policy).

2002See Smith v. Bates Technical Coll., 139 Wn.2d 793 , 991 P.2d 1135 (2000) (public policy exception to “for-cause” employees); Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (discharge of armored truck driver who abandoned post to prevent murder violated public policy).

2002See Smith v. *1227 Bates Technical Coll., 139 Wash.2d 793 , 991 P.2d 1135 (2000) (public policy exception to "for-cause" employees); Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (discharge of armored truck driver who abandoned post to prevent murder violated public policy).

2002See Smith v. Bates Technical Coll., 139 Wn.2d 793 , 991 P.2d 1135 (2000) (public policy exception to “for-cause” employees); Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (discharge of armored truck driver who abandoned post to prevent murder violated public policy).

2008Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 389 , 36 P.3d 1014 ; see also Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612, 618 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) ("`[P]ublic policy concerns what is right and just and what affects the citizens of the State collectively.'" (quoting Palmateer v. Int'l Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 130 , 421 N.E.2d 876 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 (1981))). ś9 This court has always been mindful that the wrongful discharge tort is narrow and should be "applied cautiously." Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 390 , 36 P.3d 1014 . *132 Washington courts have generally recognized the public policy exception when an employer terminates

2008Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 389 , 36 P.3d 1014 ; see also Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612, 618 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) ("`[P]ublic policy concerns what is right and just and what affects the citizens of the State collectively.'" (quoting Palmateer v. Int'l Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 130 , 421 N.E.2d 876 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 (1981))). ś9 This court has always been mindful that the wrongful discharge tort is narrow and should be "applied cautiously." Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 390 , 36 P.3d 1014 . *132 Washington courts have generally recognized the public policy exception when an employer terminates

2017A wrongful discharge in violation of a public policy claim has four elements: (1) The plaintiffs must prove the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element). (2) The plaintiffs must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element). (3) The plaintiffs must prove that the public-policy-linked conduct caused the dismissal (the causation element). (4) The defendant must not be able to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal (the absence of justification element).126] "To establish jeopardy, the plaintiff mus

2008We are mindful of the employer's burden and the need to narrowly construe the public policy exception "in order to guard against frivolous lawsuits." Gardner, 128 Wash.2d at 936 , 913 P.2d 377 .

2013See Hubbard v. Spokane County, 146 Wn.2d 699, 713 , 50 P.3d 602 (2002). ¶19 The Washington health care act (WHCA), chapter 43.70 RCW, provides comprehensive remedies to Ms. Worley to promote the public policy claim.

2006Hubbard, 146 Wn.2d at 708 . ¶9 Washington courts have recognized four general situations that give rise to the public policy exception for termination at will: discharge “(1) for refusing to commit an illegal act; (2) for performing a public duty or obligation; (3) for exercising a legal right or privilege; and (4) in retaliation for reporting employer misconduct.” Id. at 707-08 (citing Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612, 618 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989)).

2008Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 389 , 36 P.3d 1014 ; see also Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612, 618 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) ("`[P]ublic policy concerns what is right and just and what affects the citizens of the State collectively.'" (quoting Palmateer v. Int'l Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 130 , 421 N.E.2d 876 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 (1981))). ś9 This court has always been mindful that the wrongful discharge tort is narrow and should be "applied cautiously." Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 390 , 36 P.3d 1014 . *132 Washington courts have generally recognized the public policy exception when an employer terminates

2008Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 389 , 36 P.3d 1014 ; see also Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612, 618 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) ("`[P]ublic policy concerns what is right and just and what affects the citizens of the State collectively.'" (quoting Palmateer v. Int'l Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 130 , 421 N.E.2d 876 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 (1981))). ś9 This court has always been mindful that the wrongful discharge tort is narrow and should be "applied cautiously." Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 390 , 36 P.3d 1014 . *132 Washington courts have generally recognized the public policy exception when an employer terminates

2008Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 389 , 36 P.3d 1014 ; see also Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612, 618 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) ("`[P]ublic policy concerns what is right and just and what affects the citizens of the State collectively.'" (quoting Palmateer v. Int'l Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 130 , 421 N.E.2d 876 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 (1981))). ś9 This court has always been mindful that the wrongful discharge tort is narrow and should be "applied cautiously." Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 390 , 36 P.3d 1014 . *132 Washington courts have generally recognized the public policy exception when an employer terminates

2008Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 389 , 36 P.3d 1014 ; see also Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612, 618 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) ("`[P]ublic policy concerns what is right and just and what affects the citizens of the State collectively.'" (quoting Palmateer v. Int'l Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 130 , 421 N.E.2d 876 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 (1981))). ś9 This court has always been mindful that the wrongful discharge tort is narrow and should be "applied cautiously." Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 390 , 36 P.3d 1014 . *132 Washington courts have generally recognized the public policy exception when an employer terminates

2008Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 389 , 36 P.3d 1014 ; see also Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612, 618 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) ("`[P]ublic policy concerns what is right and just and what affects the citizens of the State collectively.'" (quoting Palmateer v. Int'l Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 130 , 421 N.E.2d 876 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 (1981))). ś9 This court has always been mindful that the wrongful discharge tort is narrow and should be "applied cautiously." Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 390 , 36 P.3d 1014 . *132 Washington courts have generally recognized the public policy exception when an employer terminates

2008Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 389 , 36 P.3d 1014 ; see also Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612, 618 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) ("`[P]ublic policy concerns what is right and just and what affects the citizens of the State collectively.'" (quoting Palmateer v. Int'l Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 130 , 421 N.E.2d 876 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 (1981))). ś9 This court has always been mindful that the wrongful discharge tort is narrow and should be "applied cautiously." Sedlacek, 145 Wash.2d at 390 , 36 P.3d 1014 . *132 Washington courts have generally recognized the public policy exception when an employer terminates

2022In Eastern Associated, the United States Supreme Court held that the public policy exception applies when the arbitration award violates explicit, well defined and dominant positive law, but “in principle” was not limited to such instances, although the exception 6 The court observed that “historically, we have turned to federal case law for guidance in labor law cases,” Kitsap County, 167 Wn.2d at 435 ; see accord Port of Seattle, 176 Wn.2d at 725 (“This court turns to federal case law for guidance in labor law cases.”). 12 No. 37889-6-III City of Prosser v. Teamsters Union Local 839 et al. m

2021It continued, “Such a list could not reasonably be created, and thus requiring such a list would destroy the public policy exception.” 24 No. 80467-7-I/25 Id.

2014Creelman v. Svenning, 67 Wn.2d 882, 884 , 410 P. 2d 606 ( 1966). " The public policy which requires immunity for the prosecuting attorney, also requires immunity for both the state and the county for acts of judicial and quasi-judicial officers in the performance of the duties which rest upon them." Creelman, 67 Wn.2d at 885 .

2014Creelman v. Svenning, 67 Wn.2d 882, 884 , 410 P. 2d 606 ( 1966). " The public policy which requires immunity for the prosecuting attorney, also requires immunity for both the state and the county for acts of judicial and quasi-judicial officers in the performance of the duties which rest upon them." Creelman, 67 Wn.2d at 885 .

2013See Hubbard v. Spokane County, 146 Wn.2d 699, 713 , 50 P.3d 602 (2002). ¶19 The Washington health care act (WHCA), chapter 43.70 RCW, provides comprehensive remedies to Ms. Worley to promote the public policy claim.

2006Hubbard, 146 Wash.2d at 708 , 50 P.3d 602 . ¶ 9 Washington courts have recognized four general situations that give rise to the public policy exception for termination at will: discharge "(1) for refusing to commit an illegal act; (2) for performing a public duty or obligation; (3) for exercising a legal right or privilege; and (4) in retaliation for reporting employer misconduct." Id. at 707-08 , 50 P.3d 602 (citing Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612, 618 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989)).