Opinion ID: 518933
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wrongful Discharge for Violation of Public Policy.

Text: 25 Appellants have attempted to construct a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, alleging that one reason they were terminated was their whistle-blowing, such that their termination contravenes the policies of the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act, Wash.Rev.Code Sec. 49.17.010. They attempt to substantiate the assertion with an affidavit stating that they complained to management about co-workers who used alcohol and narcotics, and who displayed firearms, in the workplace, but that they were told to stop complaining. We need not determine whether this claim is preempted by Sec. 301 because appellants have failed to state a claim sufficient to defeat summary judgment. 26 Washington State recognizes a cause of action in tort for wrongful discharge if the discharge of the employee contravenes a clear mandate of public policy. Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219, 232, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984). To determine if a violation has occurred, courts should inquire whether the employer's conduct contravenes the letter or purpose of a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision or scheme. Prior judicial decisions may also establish the relevant public policy. Id. (quoting Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 65 Hawaii 370, 380, 652 P.2d 625 (1982)). The exception, however, is narrow; courts should proceed cautiously if called upon to declare public policy absent some prior legislative or judicial expression on the subject. Id. The burden of proof is on the employee: 27 [T]o state a cause of action, the employee must plead and prove that a stated public policy, either legislatively or judicially recognized, may have been contravened. This protects against frivolous lawsuits and allows trial courts to weed out cases that do not involve any public policy principle. It also allows employers to make personnel decisions without fear of incurring civil liability. 28 Id. 102 Wash.2d at 232-33, 685 P.2d 1081. Not until the employee has demonstrated that his discharge may have been motivated by reasons that contravene a clear mandate of public policy, [does] the burden shift[ ] to the employer to prove that the dismissal was for reasons other than those alleged by the employee. Id. 29 Appellants did not initially plead whistle-blowing. Their complaint alleges only wrongful discharge for their union activities. An affidavit in response to defendant's summary judgment motion, however, states that appellants were terminated for their whistle-blowing activities, among others. But, as appellee's brief notes, not until their brief to this court did appellants specify Wash.Rev.Code 49.17.010 as the stated public policy that their discharge contravened. 30 We decline to construe liberally appellants' pleadings so as to include the allegation of a violation of Wash.Rev.Code 49.17.010. Furthermore, appellants have not adequately alleged material facts. Thornell's affidavit contains mere unsupported allegations of complaints they made, and shows no connection between the complaints and their discharges. This, without more, fails to defeat summary judgment. Angel v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank, 653 F.2d at 1299. 31