 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jaquish v. Western Washington University6/3/2002
Rodney Jaquish filed a wrongful termination complaint against Western Washington University, alleging the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy under chapter 49.32 RCW. The trial court dismissed his complaint on summary judgment and he appeals. Chapter 49.32 RCW does not apply to Jaquish as a public employee. Therefore, he may not bring a cause of action based upon its policy. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS
From 1986 to 1998, Rodney Jaquish was employed by Western Washington University (WWU) in its police department. In that capacity, he was a member of a Union.
On March 19, 1998, WWU sent Jaquish a letter informing him that his employment at WWU was terminated. That letter advised Jaquish he was entitled to appeal his termination to the Personnel Appeals Board. Jaquish filed an appeal with the Personnel Appeals Board. But after learning that his appellate hearing would be held at WWU a place that was unacceptable to him for emotional reasons he sought dismissal of the appeal.
On September 1, 2000, Jaquish filed a complaint against WWU in Whatcom County Superior Court alleging that WWU, inter alia, discriminated against him based on his union activities. Specifically, he alleged that WWU violated provisions of chapter 49.32 RCW ('Injunctions in Labor Disputes') and committed the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The public policy he alleges was violated is Washington's declaration of policy set forth in chapter 49.32 RCW that workers should be free to associate, self-organize, and designate representatives to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment free from employer interference. Jaquish sought damages for emotional distress and lost wages.
On January 11, 2001, WWU moved for summary judgment dismissal of Jaquish's claims. WWU argued that chapter 49.32 RCW does not apply to Jaquish because he was a public employee. It further maintained that Jaquish's sole statutory remedy for unfair labor practices was under the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining chapter 41.56 RCW. The trial court determined that chapter 49.32 RCW 'does not apply to public employees{.}' It therefore dismissed Jaquish's complaint with prejudice. The trial court, however, informed Jaquish that the dismissal order did not prevent him from seeking a remedy against WWU from the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) under chapter 41.56 RCW, pursuing an appeal of his termination with the Personnel Appeals Board, or seeking a remedy through arbitration. Jaquish acknowledges those remedies as available, but appeals the denial of remedies under chapter 49.32 RCW.
ANALYSIS
Jaquish, a public employee, acknowledges that there is no precedent in Washington for a public employee bringing a cause of action under chapter 49.32 RCW. He nonetheless contends that he is entitled to bring a cause of action relying upon the policy set forth in that chapter.
When reviewing summary judgment orders, this court engages in the same inquiry as the trial court. Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658, 663, 958 P.2d 301 (1998). Likewise, interpretation of a statute is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. State v. Bright, 129 Wn.2d 257, 265, 916 P.2d 922 (1996).
'Employment relationships in Washington generally are terminable at will by either party.' McClintick v. Timber Prods. Mfrs., Inc., 105 Wn. App. 914, 920, 21 P.3d 328 (2001). There is, however, a narrow exception to the employment-at-will doctrine that allows a terminated employee to bring a cause of action for wrongful discharge 'where the discharge contravenes a 'clear mandate of public policy.'' Roberts v. Dudley, 1
Page 1 2 3 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|