public policy tort claim (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

public policy tort claim in Washington

11 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2013 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.green
wash · 1991 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See Wilmot, 118 Wash.2d at 66 , 821 P.2d 18 . ¶ 38 The majority seems to suggest that Wilmot is outdated given our subsequent refinement of the public policy tort analysis into the four-part Perritt test in Gardner .

2011See Wilmot, 118 Wash.2d at 66 , 821 P.2d 18 . ¶ 38 The majority seems to suggest that Wilmot is outdated given our subsequent refinement of the public policy tort analysis into the four-part Perritt test in Gardner .

22
Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Companygreen
wash · 1984 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See Thompson, 102 Wash.2d at 231-33 , 685 P.2d 1081 .

2011See Thompson, 102 Wash.2d at 231-33 , 685 P.2d 1081 .

22
Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc.green
wash · 1996 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000See Gardner, 128 Wn.2d at 941 .

2000See Gardner, 128 Wash.2d at 941 , 913 P.2d 377 .

22
Worley v. Providence Physician Services Co.green
washctapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013This tort has four elements and the plaintiff must show that each element is satisfied in order to prevail: 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)." Worley, 175 Wn.

11
Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc.green
wash · 1996 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000See Gardner, 128 Wash.2d at 941 , 913 P.2d 377 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

CaseCitedYears
Smith v. Bates Technical College green
wash · 2000
2 sentences

2013However, the majority does not cite a single case in which this court ever addressed the jeopardy element of the public policy tort claim with regard to remedies in chapter 41.56 RCW. ¶29 Instead, according to the majority, Smith v. Bates Technical College, 139 Wn.2d 793, 799-800 , 991 P.2d 1135 (2000), necessarily recognized that the jeopardy prong of the analysis was met there and Smith is controlling precedent.

2013Instead, according to the majority Smith v. Bates Technical College, 139 Wn.2d 793, 799-800 , 991 P.2d 1135 (2000), necessarily recognized that the jeopardy prong of the analysis was met there and Smith is controlling precedent.

22013–2013
Smith v. Bates Technical College green
wash · 2000
2 sentences

2013However, the majority does not cite a single case in which this court ever addressed the jeopardy element of the public policy tort claim with regard to remedies in chapter 41.56 RCW. ¶29 Instead, according to the majority, Smith v. Bates Technical College, 139 Wn.2d 793, 799-800 , 991 P.2d 1135 (2000), necessarily recognized that the jeopardy prong of the analysis was met there and Smith is controlling precedent.

2013Instead, according to the majority Smith v. Bates Technical College, 139 Wn.2d 793, 799-800 , 991 P.2d 1135 (2000), necessarily recognized that the jeopardy prong of the analysis was met there and Smith is controlling precedent.

22013–2013
Wilson v. City of Monroe green
washctapp · 1997
2 sentences

2011This court in Ellis cited with approval the leading Court of Appeals case recognizing RCW 49.17.160 as the basis for a public policy tort claim notwithstanding the availability of remedies under the statute. 142 Wash.2d at 461 , 13 P.3d 1065 (citing Wilson, 88 Wash.App. 113 , 943 P.2d 1134 ).

2011This court in Ellis cited with approval the leading Court of Appeals case recognizing RCW 49.17.160 as the basis for a public policy tort claim notwithstanding the availability of remedies under the statute. 142 Wash.2d at 461 , 13 P.3d 1065 (citing Wilson, 88 Wash.App. 113 , 943 P.2d 1134 ).

22011–2011
Ellis v. City of Seattle green
wash · 2000
2 sentences

2011This court in Ellis cited with approval the leading Court of Appeals case recognizing RCW 49.17.160 as the basis for a public policy tort claim notwithstanding the availability of remedies under the statute. 142 Wash.2d at 461 , 13 P.3d 1065 (citing Wilson, 88 Wash.App. 113 , 943 P.2d 1134 ).

2011This court in Ellis cited with approval the leading Court of Appeals case recognizing RCW 49.17.160 as the basis for a public policy tort claim notwithstanding the availability of remedies under the statute. 142 Wn.2d at 461 (citing Wilson, 88 Wn.

22011–2011
Danny v. Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc. green
wash · 2008
2 sentences

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.

22011–2011
Danny v. Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc. green
wash · 2008
2 sentences

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.

22011–2011
Sedlacek v. Hillis green
wash · 2001
2 sentences

2008Sedlacek v. Hillis, 145 Wash.2d 379, 391-92 , 36 P.3d 1014 (2001).

2008Sedlacek v. Hillis, 145 Wn.2d 379, 391-92 , 36 P.3d 1014 (2001).

22008–2008
Sedlacek v. Hillis green
wash · 2001
2 sentences

2008Sedlacek v. Hillis, 145 Wash.2d 379, 391-92 , 36 P.3d 1014 (2001).

2008Sedlacek v. Hillis, 145 Wn.2d 379, 391-92 , 36 P.3d 1014 (2001).

22008–2008
Selberg v. United Pacific Insurance green
washctapp · 1986
2 sentences

2001In evaluating whether an employee has been rendered ineffectual by his or her opposition activity, "the court must balance the setting in which the activity arose and the interest and motivations of both employer and employee." Selberg, 45 Wash.App. at 472 , 726 P.2d 468 .

2001In evaluating whether an employee has been rendered ineffectual by his or her opposition activity, “the court must balance the setting in which the activity arose and the interest and motivations of both employer and employee.” Selberg, 45 Wn.

22001–2001
Dicomes v. State green
wash · 1989
2 sentences

2013Our Supreme Court has recognized a public policy tort claim in four areas: "`( 1) where the discharge was a result of refusing to commit an illegal act, ( 2) where the discharge resulted due to the employee performing a public duty or obligation, ( 3) where the [ discharge] resulted because the employee exercised a legal right or privilege, and ( 4) where the discharge was premised on employee whistleblowing" activity. "' Piel v. City ofFederal Way, 177 Wn.2d 604 , 609 -10, 306 P. 3d 879 2013 ) ( quoting Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612, 618 , 782 P. 2d 1002 ( 1989) ( citations omitted)).

2013Our Supreme Court has recognized a public policy tort claim in four areas: "`( 1) where the discharge was a result of refusing to commit an illegal act, ( 2) where the discharge resulted due to the employee performing a public duty or obligation, ( 3) where the [ discharge] resulted because the employee exercised a legal right or privilege, and ( 4) where the discharge was premised on employee whistleblowing" activity. "' Piel v. City ofFederal Way, 177 Wn.2d 604 , 609 -10, 306 P. 3d 879 2013 ) ( quoting Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612, 618 , 782 P. 2d 1002 ( 1989) ( citations omitted)).

12013–2013
Piel v. City of Federal Way green
wash · 2013
2 sentences

2013Our Supreme Court has recognized a public policy tort claim in four areas: "`( 1) where the discharge was a result of refusing to commit an illegal act, ( 2) where the discharge resulted due to the employee performing a public duty or obligation, ( 3) where the [ discharge] resulted because the employee exercised a legal right or privilege, and ( 4) where the discharge was premised on employee whistleblowing" activity. "' Piel v. City ofFederal Way, 177 Wn.2d 604 , 609 -10, 306 P. 3d 879 2013 ) ( quoting Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612, 618 , 782 P. 2d 1002 ( 1989) ( citations omitted)).

2013Our Supreme Court has recognized a public policy tort claim in four areas: "`( 1) where the discharge was a result of refusing to commit an illegal act, ( 2) where the discharge resulted due to the employee performing a public duty or obligation, ( 3) where the [ discharge] resulted because the employee exercised a legal right or privilege, and ( 4) where the discharge was premised on employee whistleblowing" activity. "' Piel v. City ofFederal Way, 177 Wn.2d 604 , 609 -10, 306 P. 3d 879 2013 ) ( quoting Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612, 618 , 782 P. 2d 1002 ( 1989) ( citations omitted)).

12013–2013
Ellis v. City of Seattle green
wash · 2001
1 sentence

2011This court in Ellis cited with approval the leading Court of Appeals case recognizing RCW 49.17.160 as the basis for a public policy tort claim notwithstanding the availability of remedies under the statute. 142 Wash.2d at 461 , 13 P.3d 1065 (citing Wilson, 88 Wash.App. 113 , 943 P.2d 1134 ).

12011–2011

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 49.12.200 (6) USC § 42u.s.c.5851 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.010 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 51.48.025 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

WA 11 (2000–2013) OH 7 (2000–2014) OK 5 (1995–2009) CA 3 (1994–1996) MI 2 (1995–2023)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check