11 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2024 3 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Roberts v. Dudleygreen2 sentences2011See Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wash.2d 58, 71 , 993 P.2d 901 (2000). [9] Thus, *596 though MUMA does not imply a cause of action against an employer who discharges an employee for using medical marijuana, it could still provide the basis for Roe's wrongful termination claim. ¶ 34 An employee must establish a clear statement of public policy to satisfy the clarity element. 2011Id. at 71, 993 P.2d 901 . [10] We note that the Washington State Human Rights Commission, the agency charged with investigating employee discrimination claims, acknowledges that "it would not be a reasonable accommodation of a disability for an employer to violate federal law, or allow an employee to violate federal law, by employing a person who uses medical marijuana." Laura Lindstrand, Wash. State Human Rights Comm'n, Washington Non-discrimination Laws and the Use of Medical Marijuana at 1 (June 7, 2011), available at http:// www.hum.wa.gov/Documents/Guidance/medical% 20marijuana.doc. | 2 | 2 |
Roberts v. Dudleygreen2 sentences2011See Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wash.2d 58, 71 , 993 P.2d 901 (2000). [9] Thus, *596 though MUMA does not imply a cause of action against an employer who discharges an employee for using medical marijuana, it could still provide the basis for Roe's wrongful termination claim. ¶ 34 An employee must establish a clear statement of public policy to satisfy the clarity element. 2011See Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wn.2d 58, 71 , 993 P.2d 901 (2000). 9 Thus, though MUMA does not imply a cause of action against an employer who discharges an employee for using medical marijuana, it could still provide the basis for Roe’s wrongful termination claim. ¶35 An employee must establish a clear statement of public policy to satisfy the clarity element. | 2 | 2 |
Bravo v. Dolsen Companiesgreen2 sentences2021See Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745, 752, 758 , 888 P.2d 147 (1995); Briggs v. Nova Servs., 166 Wn.2d 794, 803 , 213 P.3d 910 (2009). 2021See Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745, 752, 758 , 888 P.2d 147 (1995); Briggs v. Nova Servs., 166 Wn.2d 794, 803 , 213 P.3d 910 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Management (Colorado) LLC
green
2 sentences2024Id. 2024Id. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Smith v. Bates Technical College
green
2 sentences2013Id. at 945 (first alteration in original) (citation omitted). ¶15 We considered the viability of a wrongful termination claim based upon the statutory remedies under chapter 41.56 RCW in Smith, 139 Wn.2d 793 . 2013In the course of our analysis, we examined key distinctions between available tort remedies and statutory remedies and concluded that Smith should not be barred from bringing a tort claim “simply because her administrative and contractual remedies may partially compensate her wrongful discharge.” Id. at 806 . f 16 Not surprisingly, the Piels rely on Smith in asserting a wrongful termination claim against the City. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Martin v. Gonzaga Univ.
green
1 sentence2021Martin, 191 Wn.2d at 725 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Briggs v. Nova Services
green
1 sentence2021See Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745, 752, 758 , 888 P.2d 147 (1995); Briggs v. Nova Servs., 166 Wn.2d 794, 803 , 213 P.3d 910 (2009). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Briggs v. Nova Services
green
1 sentence2021See Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745, 752, 758 , 888 P.2d 147 (1995); Briggs v. Nova Servs., 166 Wn.2d 794, 803 , 213 P.3d 910 (2009). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Dolan v. King County
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 320-21 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Corey v. Pierce County
green
1 sentence2016App. 752 , 225 P.3d 367 (2010) (deputy prosecuting attorney who prevailed on a wrongful termination claim entitled to an award of attorney fees based on recovery of a judgment for wages owed). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc.
green
1 sentence2013Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931, 936 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996). |33 Here, SVR argues that “Washington law does not support a public policy tort based on a claim that the employer acted unlawfully and an employee voluntarily quits in response.” Br. of Appellant at 37. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931, 936 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996). |33 Here, SVR argues that “Washington law does not support a public policy tort based on a claim that the employer acted unlawfully and an employee voluntarily quits in response.” Br. of Appellant at 37. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Company
green
1 sentence2013Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219, 232 , 685 P. d 1081 (1984) quoting.Parnar v: Americana 2 ( Hotels, Inc., Haw. 370, 380, 652 P. d 625 (1982)). 65 2 Washington courts have specifically held that a wrongful termination in violation of public policy occurs 1)where employees are fired for refusing to commit an illegal act; 2)where ( employees are fired for performing a public duty or obligation, such as serving jury duty; 3)where employees are fired for exercising a legal right or privilege, ( such as filing workers' compensation claims; and (4)where employees are fired in retaliation for reporting | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Douchette v. Bethel School District No. 403
green
2 sentences2013App. 542, 551 , 85 P.3d 959 (2004). ¶17 In support of its contention that the statute of limitations barred the employees’ wrongful termination claim, SVR relies exclusively on its own interpretation of a single Washington case, Douchette v. Bethel School District No. 403, 117 Wn.2d 805 , 818 P.2d 1362 (1991). 2013App. 542, 551 , 85 P.3d 959 (2004). ¶17 In support of its contention that the statute of limitations barred the employees’ wrongful termination claim, SVR relies exclusively on its own interpretation of a single Washington case, Douchette v. Bethel School District No. 403, 117 Wn.2d 805 , 818 P.2d 1362 (1991). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Travis v. Tacoma Public School Dist.
green
1 sentence2013App. 542, 551 , 85 P.3d 959 (2004). ¶17 In support of its contention that the statute of limitations barred the employees’ wrongful termination claim, SVR relies exclusively on its own interpretation of a single Washington case, Douchette v. Bethel School District No. 403, 117 Wn.2d 805 , 818 P.2d 1362 (1991). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.
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.