substantial factor in her discharge from point the trial court dismissed miss rock's wrongful discharge and violation of public policy claiming state law of washington on the ground in washington has not express the consumer protection act of washington and the federal trade commission act are sources of clearly mandated public policy for the purpose of satisfying the first element that is the clarity element of the public policy  therefore obtain the certification fraudulently that is a violation of the consumer protection act and the federal trade commission act when companies lie to obtain third party certification consumer protection act being relevant to whether there's a policy and the terminations in violation of public policy if there was a termination but i don't see how there can be a consumer protection act the termination employee successfully prevent the employer from consummating a violation of the underlying source states a claim under the public policy toward thank you the fourth point that we want to make is if to the jury and satisfy the jeopardy element now specifically the state supreme court in washington in hubbard versus spokane has on three occasions for approved a west virginia supreme court decision called harless first first national bank which stands for the proposition that a bank employee who tried to enforce the state's consumer protection act and was terminated there by states a claim  policy and specifically in however the court said that the hubbard fasts which which would force the zoning ordinance were very much like the heartless decision it seems quite clear that the state of washington through the supreme court has found it clear public policy in consumer protection the consumer protection act is quite broad it says its purpose is to compliment the body of federal law which to now it covers all deceptive practices covers all unfair methods the competition it's a parallel provision giving state court jurisdiction to inspection five of the federal trade commission i believe that's correct in language i think that's correct with regard to without having to actually prove a violation of the underlying source the focus of the consumer protection act includes the capacity to disk ok and that would require that the employee who gets fired for successfully stopping an employer from engaging in a deceptive that has accomplished the goal if we allow employers terminate somebody after listening to them then we will completely undermine the villainy of employees to step forward accomplish the public interest if they're successfully accomplished like public interest or lose their job i want to give us an example of the concern a different employer actually live to in this case the i s o which is the international standards organization which very clearly in its own mission is go to the jury on the question of constructive discharge on exactly the same facts that he dismissed as a consumer protection claim i'm the only difference is norton ever had untel she was directed by him to lie to and i did her and she told him that she would not do so and reported his directive to h after that she suffered a pattern of retaliatory treatment which constitutes aggravating factors required for constructive discharge after she refused to lie to the ice record i believe it's e r one twenty three in one twenty four my twenty two and one twenty three she cents that very afternoon at three fifty four pm after the vice president of human resources had received her plea for help and her detailed allegations of she also alleged that as one other source of public policy for her claim was the federal fast planes that public policy clearly expressed in that act for hea protection act claim which is extremely relevant to prove that she was i don't want fully discharged in violation of public policy if she wasn't able to believed that that usurped seventy five she claims seventy five to eighty percent of her work responsibilities she left work that day there was no effort made to resolve the issue she simply left work but she said she wasn't terminated at that point she said she was terminated some months later she remains on paid leave for over six months after leaving work and under washington law we believe that clearly does not meet the standard as a matter of law is not a constructive germination those facts washington lobby choir's their employer deliberately make working conditions so intolerable so as to force a reasonable person to resign and we believe that these facts do not support that or washington line fall or all conditions are shown by aggravating circumstances or continue this pattern of discriminatory treatment we believe again the record is is not sufficient to support that  again was there a letter from in house counsel when when she was out on this rock with are we saying are you coming back you're going to have to come back or explain what the records show that correct there were two letters and the first was in february of two thousand and four months after she left work and the letter said that's a you're one twenty six to one twenty seven letters that basically you know you've been on paid leave this really can't continue forever we'd like your clients to come back to work and said would you essentially set a deadline if you don't return within a couple of letter to place and so i think you know again when you look at the question of whether it's a matter of law the structure terminations and they say the fermentation occurred in two thousand i think you got to consider those facts that that the that the plants you're rejected to invitations to return to work now if i may i think i would like to briefly address the question of whether is whether there is in public you know frankly i really have no objection to the proposition that the consumer protection act may state certain important public policies for the citizens of washington is that this is supposedly law i would have made no difference whatsoever to that certificate so how can a washington consumer such as it is be confused by that frankly i'm a consumer and i didn't know anything about i certificates to like so i got into this case i don't know that many consumers are substantial portion of the consumers at large are concerned about ice with certificates but even if they are the evidence is under spirited that the why which can let's let's be clear about what this was it was an explanation too and i thought of her as to why there was a decrease in the documentation but the evidence is clear that this issue this question of the documentation how they were handling complaints and that's really what it's about they were still processing complaints but they weren't documented thing those how they were processing them in accordance with their own written for seizures and that's what i saw was all about are you following these procedures that are here in writing and if they did they were not with respect to those complaints and the person who was involved actually involved with the ice a lot of when this ideal of trying to hide why this was occurring why this decreases wait a minute big deal this is a so what this or testimony it's irrelevant are not affected by this in any way the person eat it first of all there are two steps to that unless there's imminent harm presented the washington courts have said there must be an actual violation of a lot or policy or regulation that they have held that where imminent harm is presented then they're going to so you don't have to show an actual violation of law for the imply they could simply show that they had an objectively reasonable belief that the might be violated and the fact is under her own our own deposition testimony she said she had no idea of what consequences would follow if the auditors were told about how they were processing these about that your honor if in fact consumers would be affected there might be an issue but i believe much on the no consumers would have been affected that's why i say who is the right to what's it about and i think you need to look at that lie would have made a difference you need to show that on this record it's clear that it would not meet a difference because they told the auditor what was going on you know why you ever took place if the question is whether up of false stories to give to those people how could somebody say that doesn't violate a public policy of the state if they could prove that the auditors would have done the same thing anyway because it's mother well i think that when you're talking about communications to a c v a and that's where again i you know say to the lies made to makes a difference i mean this if you think is supporting your books for a completely different purpose leave on administrative leave yes and she got the same letter saying time for you to come back yes the letters went to their attorney but correct and also she also didn't come back and claims what a construct of hist claims under state and federal law and went to trial again wrongful discharge claim on the theory that she had been wrongfully discharged for opposing sex discrimination those fines were tried in the jury returned a verdict