N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
YVETTE B AILEY,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ALPHA TEC HNOLOGIES INC ORPOR

ATED, a W a shington c orporation; ALTAIR

ADVANC ED INDUSTR IES INC , a

W a shington c orporation; AB C , INC
. 1-10, de fe nda nt c orporation(s) whosenam e (s) is/a re unknown; FR

EDER IC K KAISER ; JANE DOE KAISER , a

nd the m arita l c om

m unity c om prise d the re of; GR

A C E B O R SAR I; JOHN DOE B OR SAR I, and the m arita l c om m unity c om prise d the re of, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-36002 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-00727-JC C
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington John C . C o u ghe nour, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

16, 2019 Se a ttle , W a s hington 

# FIL ED
M AY28 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : HAW KINS an d W . FLETC HER , C i rc uit Judge s, a nd SEEB OR G, ** Distric t Judge
. Appe lla nt, Yve tte B a ile y , sue d de fe nda n ts for wrongful te rm ination unde r W a shington la

w . The distric t c ourt gra

n te d judgm e nt a s a

m a tte r of la

w in fa vor of de fe nda n ts, a nd a ppe lla nt a ppe a le d. W e have jurisdic tion pursua n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm
. 1 B a ile y a lle ge s tha

t she wa s te rm inate d from he r job a s a

se nior inte rna tiona l buy e r in re ta l iation for whistle b lowing a b out ta x fra ud c onc e rns. De fe nda

nts
argue d tha t pla intiff wa s te rm inate d

be c a use of a n inc ide nt tha

t oc c urre d on a busine ss trip. At the

c onc lusion of plaintiff’ s e vide nc e a t tria l, the distric t c ourt gran te d judgm e nt a s a

m a tte r of la

w on m ultiple grounds. In Thompson v

. St. Re

gis Pape r C

o. , 685 P.2d 1081, 1088 (Wa sh. 1984), W a shington “

re c ogniz e [d] a

c a u se of a c tion in tort for wrongful disc ha rge if the disc ha rge of the e m

p loy e e c ontra

ve ne s a c l e ar m andate of public polic y .” Id. a t 1089. W a shington ha s a llowe d wrongful disc ha rge c l a im s “ w he re e m

ploy e e s a re fire d in re ta lia

tion for re p o rting e m

ploy e r m isc onduc t, i.e ., whistleblowing.” Gardne r v . Loomis Armore d Inc

. , 913 P.2d 377, 379 (W a sh. 1996) (c iting D ic ome s

* * The Honora

ble R ic ha rd Se e borg, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. 1 B a ile y a l so m ove d for c e rtific a tion to the W a shington Supre m e C ourt on two que stions of W a shington la w (Dkt. 12). W e de ny he r m otion for c e rtific a tion.

2v . State , 782 P.2d 1002, 1007 (Wa sh. 1989)). To pre va il on a wrongful te rm ination

c la im , a pla intiff m

u st prove tha

t he r prote c te d

a c tivity wa s “ a substa ntia l fa c tor
m otiva t ing the e m

ploy e r to disc ha

rge the e m

p loy e e .” Ric k

man v . Pre me ra Blue C ross , 358 P.3d 1153, 1160 (Wa sh. 2015). On the undispute d fa c ts of this c a se , whe re B a ile y

did e xa c tly

what she wa s instruc te d to do— to re port to he r supe riors in orde r to he lp the c om

pa ny avoid viola

ting ta x la w— he r whistle blowe r c la im fa ils. AFFIRM E D.

3