## Facts

- Kevin M. Gardner worked as an armored-car guard/driver for Loomis Armored, Inc., subject to a strict rule requiring drivers to remain with and not leave the armored vehicle unattended; violation could result in termination.
- During a bank stop in Spokane, Gardner stayed in the truck while his partner entered the bank, consistent with the rule.
- Gardner saw a bank manager flee the bank while being chased by a man holding a knife; she ran past the truck, looked at Gardner, and repeatedly asked for help.
- Believing the manager was in imminent danger and seeing no one else responding, Gardner exited the truck (locking it) to intervene.
- The assailant then seized another woman and moved into the bank; Gardner followed, and with his partner’s assistance disarmed and subdued the assailant, ending a hostage situation tied to an attempted bank robbery.
- Loomis terminated Gardner for leaving the armored car unattended in violation of company policy; his partner was not disciplined.
- Gardner sued for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy in federal court, which certified a question of Washington law to the Washington Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer contravenes Washington public policy by terminating an at-will employee who violated a company rule in order to assist a citizen facing imminent serious physical injury or death.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court answered the certified question “yes,” recognizing a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy on these facts.
- The court held a clear public policy favors protection of human life and that terminating an employee for reasonable, emergency rescue conduct can contravene that policy.
- Applying the public-policy tort framework, the court concluded:
  - A clear public policy exists favoring protection of human life.
  - Allowing termination for such rescue conduct would jeopardize that policy by deterring aid in life-threatening emergencies.
  - The discharge was causally linked to the protected conduct because the rule violation occurred solely to render emergency assistance.
  - The employer’s business justification for the rule, though generally legitimate, did not outweigh the public policy in the extreme, life-threatening circumstances presented.

## Legal Principles

- Washington recognizes a common-law tort for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
- A plaintiff must show: (1) clarity—existence of a clear public policy; (2) jeopardy—discouraging the conduct would jeopardize that policy; (3) causation—a causal link between the conduct and discharge; and (4) absence of justification—no overriding legitimate justification for the discharge.
- Protection of human life is a sufficiently clear and fundamental public policy to support the tort.
- An employer’s otherwise valid safety or security rule may not be enforced through termination when, in an emergency, the rule’s application would punish an employee’s reasonable effort to prevent imminent serious injury or death.
- The decision protects employees from discharge for voluntary rescue in extraordinary circumstances; it does not impose a general legal duty to intervene.

## Conclusion

The court held that discharging an armored-car driver for briefly leaving his truck to assist people facing imminent life-threatening harm can violate Washington’s public policy favoring protection of human life, permitting a wrongful-discharge claim despite the employer’s general interest in enforcing safety and security rules.


Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wash. 2d 931, 913 P.2d 377 (1996)