Stoel Rives: Washington Court of Appeals Expands "Jeopardy" Element of Claim for Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy | Practical Law

Stoel Rives: Washington Court of Appeals Expands "Jeopardy" Element of Claim for Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy | Practical Law

This Law Firm Publication by Stoel Rives LLP discusses the Washington State Court of Appeals recent decision in Becker v. Community Health Systems, Inc., expanding protection in a wrongful termination action based on violation of a public policy. In Becker, the plaintiff former employee sued in superior court for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. After the trial court denied the employer's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under CR 12(b)(6), the employer sought discretionary review with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's complaint adequately alleged the jeopardy element of a wrongful discharge claim under CR 12(b)(6) and that his case could proceed, despite the existence of five statutory options for promoting public policy. The court found the available statutory remedies inadequate.

Stoel Rives: Washington Court of Appeals Expands "Jeopardy" Element of Claim for Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy

by Stoel Rives LLP
Published on 29 Aug 2014United States, Washington
This Law Firm Publication by Stoel Rives LLP discusses the Washington State Court of Appeals recent decision in Becker v. Community Health Systems, Inc., expanding protection in a wrongful termination action based on violation of a public policy. In Becker, the plaintiff former employee sued in superior court for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. After the trial court denied the employer's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under CR 12(b)(6), the employer sought discretionary review with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's complaint adequately alleged the jeopardy element of a wrongful discharge claim under CR 12(b)(6) and that his case could proceed, despite the existence of five statutory options for promoting public policy. The court found the available statutory remedies inadequate.