Roberts v. Dudley: An unnecessary broadening of the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine in Washington

In Roberts v. Dudley, the Supreme Court of Washington dramatically expanded the previously narrow public policy exception to the employment-at-will do ctrine and created a dangerous precedent. The court held that small employe rs, explicitly exempt from the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) , could be liable at common law for the tort of wrongful discharge in viola tion of Washington's public policy against sex discrimination as found in t he WLAD. The tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy requi res a finding of a "clear mandate of public policy." This Note argues the c ourt should not have found in the WLAD a mandate of public policy sufficien tly clear to support the common law tort claim. The court disregarded the p lain language of the WLAD, the relevant legislative history, and its own pr ecedent. In dissent, Justice Madsen identified flaws in the majority's reas oning, but failed to acknowledge that the WLAD's small-employer exemption c annot block a common law claim based outside of the WLAD. Therefore, althou gh the court's ultimate conclusion was correct, its use of the WLAD to supp ort an action against an employer expressly exempted by the WLAD threatens other exempted groups and invites the usurpation of legislative power.