## Facts

- Fluor became the prime Department of Energy contractor at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in 1996; DynCorp became responsible for the Fire Systems Maintenance (FSM) group as a subcontractor.
- Steven Korslund worked as the fire systems administrator/lead engineer; Virginia Miller and John Acosta were journeyman electricians in the FSM group under a collective bargaining agreement.
- Beginning in early 1997, the employees made oral and written reports (some anonymous) alleging safety issues and workplace misconduct, including fire-protection safety violations, misuse of government funds and property, nepotism, improper gifting, and abuse of overtime/work hours.
- The employees also alleged threats, retaliation, and harassment by management because of their complaints.
- Korslund and Miller alleged constructive discharge; all three alleged retaliatory treatment.
- The employees asserted that employer policies and assurances promised nonretaliation and fair procedures for handling complaints, which they claimed were breached.

## Issues

1. Whether the employees produced evidence sufficient to avoid summary judgment on tort claims for wrongful discharge/constructive discharge and retaliation in violation of public policy based on reporting safety and related misconduct at a DOE nuclear site.
2. Whether the employees produced evidence sufficient to avoid summary judgment on contract claims that employer policies or statements created enforceable promises of specific treatment in specific situations under *Thompson*.
3. Whether the existence of comprehensive regulatory remedial schemes governing nuclear safety and whistleblower protection precluded or limited common-law tort remedies in this context.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the public-policy tort claims for wrongful discharge (including constructive discharge) and retaliation.
- The court reversed summary judgment on the contract-based *Thompson* claims, holding that genuine issues of material fact required further proceedings.
- The case was remanded for litigation of the contract claims.

## Legal Principles

- A Washington wrongful-discharge-in-violation-of-public-policy claim is analyzed under the clarity, jeopardy, causation, and justification framework.
- The “jeopardy” element is not satisfied when existing statutory or regulatory schemes supply adequate, specific mechanisms to protect the public policy and provide remedies for the complained-of conduct.
- In settings governed by specialized federal/agency remediation for safety reporting and retaliation, common-law public-policy tort claims may be unavailable because the policy is sufficiently protected through those alternative remedies.
- Employer policies and statements may form enforceable obligations when they constitute promises of specific treatment in specific situations under *Thompson*.
- If reasonable factfinders could disagree about whether such promises were made, how employees would reasonably interpret them, or whether they were breached, summary judgment is improper.

## Conclusion

The court held that specialized remedial schemes governing safety and retaliation at a federal nuclear facility defeated the “jeopardy” element of public-policy wrongful-discharge claims, but disputes about whether employer policies created and breached specific contractual promises required reinstatement and remand of the employees’ *Thompson*-based contract claims.


Korslund v. DynCorp Tri-Cities Servs., Inc., 121 Wash. App. 295, 88 P.3d 966 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)