Introduction

The legal case of Kevin M. Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc. addresses the complexities surrounding wrongful termination under the at-will employment doctrine when an employee acts against company policies to assist in a life-threatening situation. This commentary examines the Supreme Court of Washington's en banc decision delivered on April 4, 1996, which set a significant precedent in employment law by recognizing circumstances under which terminating an employee for such actions contravenes public policy.

Summary of the Judgment

In this case, Kevin M. Gardner, an armored car driver employed by Loomis Armored Inc., was terminated for exiting his armored truck to assist a woman being chased by a suspect with a knife. Despite company policies strictly forbidding drivers from leaving their vehicles, Gardner's actions were deemed necessary to prevent serious physical injury or death. The Supreme Court of Washington ruled that terminating Gardner under these circumstances violated public policy, establishing that employers cannot enforce at-will termination when employees act to save lives, thus carving out an important exception to the traditional at-will employment framework.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several pivotal cases and statutes that shape the public policy exception to wrongful discharge claims:

• Roberts v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1977): Established the foundational at-will employment doctrine in Washington.
• Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co. (1984): Expanded the at-will doctrine by introducing exceptions based on public policy violations.
• DICOMES v. STATE (1989): Categorized wrongful termination claims under public policy into four distinct scenarios.
• WILMOT v. KAISER ALUMINUM Chem. Corp. (1991): Reinforced the necessity for employers to provide non-retaliatory reasons for termination.

The court also considered statutory provisions such as RCW 9.01.055, RCW 9A.76.020, RCW 9A.76.030, and RCW 7.69.010, which collectively underscore the societal obligation to assist in law enforcement and rescue operations under specific circumstances.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed Henry Perritt Jr.'s four-element test to assess the validity of Gardner's wrongful termination claim:

1. Clear Public Policy: The court evaluated whether a clear public policy existed that would be violated by Gardner's termination. It determined that while statutes support limited cooperation with law enforcement, the broader good samaritan policies are not sufficiently clear. However, the court identified a narrow public policy favoring the protection of human life in imminent danger.
2. Jeopardy of Public Policy: Gardner's actions directly aligned with the identified public policy of protecting human life, suggesting that his termination would discourage similar life-saving conduct among employees.
3. Causation: The court found that Gardner's departure from the truck was intrinsically linked to his termination, satisfying the causation requirement.
4. Absence of Overriding Justification: Loomis argued that enforcing the work rule was essential for employee safety and preventing criminal ploys. However, the court concluded that the public policy of saving lives outweighed these justifications in this specific instance.

The majority opinion balanced the company's legitimate interests in maintaining strict safety protocols against the societal imperative to protect human life, ultimately favoring the latter in this context.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for employment law, particularly in the realm of at-will employment exceptions. It establishes that employees may have protections against termination when their actions, though against company policy, serve a higher public policy of saving lives. Future cases involving similar circumstances will reference this precedent to determine the balance between employer rules and the societal value placed on heroic actions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

At-Will Employment Doctrine

This legal principle allows employers to terminate employees for any reason, as long as it's not illegal, without prior notice. However, exceptions exist where termination violates higher legal principles or public policies.

Public Policy Exception

An exception to the at-will doctrine where employees cannot be fired for actions that contravene established societal values or policies, such as performing a legal duty or protecting human life.

Wrongful Discharge

Termination of an employee in violation of legal protections or public policies, which can form the basis for a lawsuit against the employer.

Good Samaritan Doctrine

A legal principle that encourages individuals to assist others in distress by providing immunity from liability in certain cases, though it may not extend to overriding employer policies broadly.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Washington's decision in Kevin M. Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc. underscores the nuanced interplay between employer discretion under the at-will employment doctrine and the societal imperative to protect human life. By recognizing a narrow public policy exception, the court affirms that employees may hold protections against termination when their life-saving actions, although against company rules, align with fundamental public interests. This judgment serves as a critical reference point for future disputes where employee actions intended to avert harm come into conflict with established workplace policies.