Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities Services, Inc., 156 Wash. 2d 168

Summary

The Supreme Court of Washington held that the plaintiffs' wrongful discharge and retaliation claims based on public policy failed because the Energy Reorganization Act provided adequate alternative remedies. The court allowed the plaintiffs' claims for breach of promises of specific treatment in specific situations to proceed, concluding that those claims were not limited to discharged employees and presented material factual issues.

Holdings

1. An employee may, under some circumstances, be constructively discharged when an employer deliberately creates intolerable working conditions that force the employee to permanently leave the workplace for medical reasons; the employee need not formally quit or resign. However, an employee who remains employed, continues receiving employment benefits, or has protected ability to return to work generally has not been constructively discharged unless the leave is comparable to termination.
2. The plaintiffs' wrongful-discharge claims fail as a matter of law because the Energy Reorganization Act provides adequate alternative means of promoting and protecting the public policy against retaliation for reporting nuclear-industry safety violations.
3. The court declined to recognize or consider the proposed tort of wrongful retaliation in violation of public policy because the same public policy was adequately protected by the ERA and therefore the plaintiffs could not establish jeopardy.
4. Discharge is not a prerequisite to a claim for breach of promises of specific treatment in specific situations, and coverage by a collective bargaining agreement or the existence of an at-will employment provision does not automatically bar such a claim.
5. The plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to create material factual issues concerning whether DynCorp's policies made specific promises of corrective or disciplinary action, whether those promises were breached, and whether the plaintiffs justifiably relied on them. Summary judgment was therefore improper on those claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an employee may establish constructive discharge for purposes of a wrongful-discharge-in-violation-of-public-policy claim by permanently leaving work on medical leave without formally quitting or resigning.
2. Whether the Energy Reorganization Act's whistleblower protections and remedies provide adequate alternative means of protecting the public policy against retaliation for reporting nuclear-industry safety violations, thereby defeating the jeopardy element of Washington's public-policy tort.
3. Whether Washington should recognize a separate tort for wrongful retaliation in violation of public policy under the circumstances presented.
4. Whether a claim for breach of promises of specific treatment in specific situations is available absent termination and to employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement or an at-will employment provision.
5. Whether the plaintiffs presented factual issues concerning promises, breach, and justifiable reliance sufficient to defeat summary judgment on their specific-treatment claims.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded