Martin v. Gonzaga Univ.

Decision Date13 September 2018
Docket NumberNo. 95269-8,95269-8
Citation425 P.3d 837,191 Wash.2d 712
CourtWashington Supreme Court
Parties David MARTIN, Petitioner, v. GONZAGA UNIVERSITY, Respondent, and Chris Standiford, et ux., Defendants.

Julie Christine Watts, The Law Office of Julie C. Watts, PLLC, 505 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 210, Spokane, WA 99201-0518, Attorney For Petitioner

Michael Bradley Love, Michael Love Law, PLLC, 905 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 404, Spokane, WA 99201-1099, Attorney For Respondents

Jeffrey Lowell Needle, Michael Craig Subit, Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP, 705 2nd Avenue, Suite 1200, Seattle, WA 98104-1798, Attorney(s) for Amicus Curiae (Washington Employment Lawyers Association)

Valerie Davis McOmie, Attorney at Law, 4549 NW Aspen Street, Camas, WA 98607-8302, Daniel Edward Huntington, Richter-Wimberley PS, 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1300, Spokane, WA 99201-0305, Attorney(s) for Amicus Curiae (Washington State Association For Justice Foundation)

OWENS, J.

¶ 1 Gonzaga University discharged David Martin, the plaintiff in this case. Martin sued Gonzaga, alleging that he was wrongfully discharged because of his whistle-blowing, and asserting a private claim under RCW 49.12.250 for an alleged violation of that statute’s requirement that Gonzaga provide him with his complete personnel file. Gonzaga successfully moved for summary judgment on both claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful discharge claim but remanded the personnel file claim for further findings of fact.

¶ 2 The main issue on appeal to this court is whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct test to Martin’s whistle-blower claim. We find that the Court of Appeals applied the incorrect standard, one reserved for wrongful discharge claims that do not fit into the four recognized categories of wrongful discharge claims, rather than the standard used for wrongful discharge claims based on whistle-blowing, one of the recognized categories of claims. However, we affirm the Court of Appeals' ultimate holding that Gonzaga is entitled to summary judgment on the wrongful termination claim. We further find that Martin’s statutory claim regarding his personnel file is not yet justiciable and thus reverse the Court of Appeals' holding on that claim. The trial court correctly held that Gonzaga is entitled to summary judgment on both claims.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

¶ 3 This action stems from Martin’s employment at Gonzaga University’s Rudolf Fitness Center. Gonzaga University opened the Rudolf Fitness Center in 2003. The fitness center is a part of the athletic department at the university. Until 2012, there was no padding on the walls in the fitness center’s basketball field house. The university began discussing whether padding should be installed in 2004. In 2004, Chris Standiford, senior associate athletics director, directed Jose Hernandez, assistant athletics director, to work with a risk manager in determining whether the pads were necessary. The university declined to install the padding. In 2007, another study was conducted, and Hernandez recommended to the administration that pads be installed. Several students had been injured from accidental impact with the bare concrete walls.

¶ 4 Gonzaga University hired Martin in 2008 to work as an assistant director of the fitness center. Martin was an at-will employee and was not subject to a written contract for a definite term of employment. Martin received benefits, including a tuition benefit, which he used to enroll in Gonzaga University’s master’s degree program for sports administration. Martin was supervised by Hernandez, who reported to assistant athletic director Joel Morgan, who reported to Standiford, who reported to athletic director Mike Roth.

¶ 5 Martin’s April 2011 job evaluation rated him below average for interpersonal skills, problem solving, professional development, and leadership responsibilities. Hernandez deemed Martin’s overall performance below the quality and standard that Martin was capable of, noting that his "inconsistent performance kept him from meeting the basic job requirements." Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 128. The evaluation went on to say that "[t]hroughout the academic year, at times [Martin] displayed great work ethics and at other times he would not. This up and down behavior and conduct was a surprise and is uncharacteristic of him." Id. After the evaluation, Hernandez asked Martin how Hernandez could improve his own performance and how the fitness center could improve. Martin proposed starting a new swimming program and expressed dissatisfaction with the fitness center staff’s lack of teamwork and resistance to change. He did not mention safety at the basketball courts. Hernandez counseled Martin on his resistance to following protocol and improving his communication with colleagues to be less abrasive and insensitive.

¶ 6 As a part of his master’s degree program, Martin wrote a proposal to improve the fitness center, which he alleges included a swimming program as a way to generate funds for wall padding at the basketball court. There is no copy of the proposal in the record, and no one other than Martin has testified to verify its contents. Martin gave the proposal to Hernandez and asked if he could submit it to Standiford, who oversaw the budget. According to Martin, Hernandez granted him permission. Hernandez denied that he gave Martin permission. On February 29, 2012, Martin sent Standiford his proposal in an e-mail and requested a meeting to discuss it with him. The e-mail was titled "Future Pool Proposal" and did not mention student safety concerns resulting from the lack of protective padding in the basketball court. CP at 115. Standiford responded by explaining that "[i]t is more organizationally appropriate for you to provide Jose [Hernandez] with the proposal for consideration. If you have already done this, and Jose [Hernandez] supports the proposal, I would suggest he meet with Joel [Morgan] for further consideration and deliberation." CP at 114. Martin replied,

In the politest possible way ... according to our organizational layout in the Policies and Procedures Manual, pg. 6, there is no such line of communication or organization hierarchy established for the RFC [Rudolf Fitness Center] staff to follow. I have Jose’s consent in this matter and I understand that you are an extremely busy individual, I wouldn't be asking for your time if I didn't plan on using it to the fullest. Imagine this as a "golden ticket" idea. Something that I don't want others corrupting or taking credit for. I would ask that you please meet with me and hear my thoughts on this matter. If it needs to wait until after you return, then so be it, but I have worked hard on this and would appreciate your audience, and your audience alone.

Id. The e-mail gave Standiford concern that Martin was trying to generate income for himself in violation of the university’s mission, and so he contacted Hernandez and Morgan and asked them to contact human resources for advice on how to proceed.

¶ 7 Hernandez scheduled a meeting with Martin and Morgan for the next day, March 1, to express disappointmentthat Martin had disobeyed Standiford’s direction and to deliver a letter of expectations to Martin. After Hernandez informed Martin of the meeting, Martin said, " ‘You cannot make me go.’ " CP at 121. Hernandez told him to attend; otherwise, his employment standing would worsen. At the meeting, Martin argued with and interrupted Hernandez. Hernandez told Martin he would receive a letter of expectations and his performance would be evaluated over the following two weeks. Morgan told Martin to provide him with his proposal, and Martin refused. Martin asked to leave the meeting and left. Id. Martin then found another associate director of the fitness center, Shelly Radtke, and yelled at her that she needed to give him permission to leave work. Martin persuaded Andrew Main, an assistant director, to cover his shift but did not ask permission from Hernandez to leave work early. Main told Hernandez and Morgan that Martin told him, "Joel [Morgan] is upset I went over his head and Jose [Hernandez] is a push over." CP at 216. Morgan and Heather Murray, from human resources, agreed that Martin should be placed on administrative leave for his actions during and after the meeting. The next day, March 2, Hernandez notified Martin of this decision and told him the terms of his leave prohibited him from contacting anyone at the university except human resources staff and Hernandez.

¶ 8 On March 5, Martin called the executive assistant to the university’s president and requested a meeting with President Thayne McCulloh to present a proposal. The executive assistant told Martin to follow the chain of command within the athletics department. The next day, Martin sent President McCulloh his proposal in an e-mail. The e-mail does not mention safety concerns related to the lack of padding in the basketball courts. On March 6, the president’s executive assistant responded by e-mail, reiterating that Martin must follow the chain of command to submit the proposal. She then forwarded the e-mail exchange to Roth, who forwarded it to Murray and Standiford.

On March 7, a student sustained a concussion and needed stitches after running into one of the bare concrete walls in the fitness center’s basketball court. On March 8, Gonzaga University terminated Martin’s employment, citing his failure to correct past performance issues identified in his April 2011 performance review and insubordination. According to Martin, at the meeting wherein he was fired, Standiford told him one reason for his termination was the belief that Martin gave information about student injuries resulting from the lack of padding to the Gonzaga University student newspaper. Martin had submitted an incomplete article from the student newspaper, which quotes Hernandez and Martin, reporting on the lack of wall padding and student...

To continue reading

Request your trial
87 cases
  • Schuck v. Beck
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • October 19, 2021
    ...by a court. See Martin v. Gonzaga University , 200 Wash. App. 332, 370-71, 402 P.3d 294 (2017), aff'd in part, rev'd in part , 191 Wash.2d 712, 425 P.3d 837 (2018). ¶142 WASH. CONST . art. I, § 21 declares that the "right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." The term "inviolate" connot......
  • State v. Van Elsloo
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 13, 2018
  • Schuck v. Beck
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • October 19, 2021
    ...by a court. See Martin v. Gonzaga University, 200 Wn.App. 332, 370-71, 402 P.3d 294 (2017), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 191 Wn.2d 712, 425 P.3d 837 (2018). Wash. Const. art. I, § 21 declares that the "right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." The term "inviolate" connotes deserving ......
  • Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • March 3, 2020
    ...an employer cannot terminate an employee for " ‘reasons that contravene a clear mandate of public policy.’ " Martin v. Gonzaga Univ. , 191 Wash.2d 712, 723, 425 P.3d 837 (2018) (quoting Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co. , 102 Wash.2d 219, 232, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984) ). Violation of this rule gi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT