state tort claim in Washington

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

1989Ed. 2d 791, 803 , 107 S. Ct. 2161 (1987) (because of the need for uniform interpretation, section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act preempted a state tort claim); North Dakota v. Merchants Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 634 F.2d 368 , 369 (8th Cir. 1980) (section 30 of the National Bank Act preempted state common law of unfair competition); Pioneer, 98 Wn.2d at 856 ("a federal enactment will preempt state statutory and common law" if there is actual conflict).

1989Ed. 2d 791, 803 , 107 S. Ct. 2161 (1987) (because of the need for uniform interpretation, section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act preempted a state tort claim); North Dakota v. Merchants Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 634 F.2d 368 , 369 (8th Cir. 1980) (section 30 of the National Bank Act preempted state common law of unfair competition); Pioneer, 98 Wn.2d at 856 ("a federal enactment will preempt state statutory and common law" if there is actual conflict).