Becker v. Comm'y Health Sys., Inc..

This opinion was flied for record
-~ :R.
carpeni9i
Supreme Court Clark
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
GREGG BECKER, )
) No. 90946-6
Respondent, )
)
v. ) EnBanc
)
COlVlMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. )
d/b/a COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS )
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES )
CORPORATION d/b/a COMMUNITY )
HEALTH SYSTEMS PSC, INC. d/b/a/ )
ROCKWOOD CLINIC P.S.; and )
ROCKWOOD CLINIC, P.S., )
)
Petitioners. )
___________________________) Filed SEP 1 7 2015
JOHNSON, J.-This case involves the "jeopardy" element of the tort for
wrongful discharge against public policy and whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (SOX), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, or the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6, bar Gregg Becker
from recovery under the tort claim. This is one of three concomitant cases before
us concerning the "adequacy of alternative remedies" component of the jeopardy
element. See Rose v. Anderson .Hay & Grain Co., No. 90975-0 (Wash. Sept. 17,
2015), and Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross, No. 91040-5 (Wash. Sept. 17, 2015).
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
Our recent holding in Rose instructs that alternative statutory remedies are to be
analyzed for exclusivity, rather than adequacy. Under that formulation, neither
SOX nor Dodd-Frank preclude Becker from recovery. We affirm the trial court's
denial of Community Health Systems Inc.'s (CHS) CR 12(b)(6) motion, and affirm
the Court of Appeals in upholding that decision upon certified interlocutory
review.
FACTS
Becker began working for Rockwood Clinic PS, an acquired subsidiary of
CHS, 1 as its chief financial officer (CFO) in February 2011. As a publicly traded
company, CJ-IS is required to file reports with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC). These reports are available publicly for the purpose
of accurately advising the SEC, and CHS' creditors and investors, of CHS'
profitability and business strategies. As Rockwood's CFO, Becker was required by
state and federal law to ensure that Rockwood's reports did not mislead the public,
which also required his personal verification that the reports did not contain any
inaccurate material facts or material omissions. As the CFO, Becker himself was
1
Rockwood is an acquired entity of CHS and does business as Community Health
Systems Professional Services Corporation (CHSPS). CHS is a publically traded company
incorporated in Delaware and licensed to do business in Washington. Becker's allegations are
against CHS as the employer; however, the superior court dismissed CHS as a defendant, since
CHS is a holding company with no contacts in Washington. CHSPS remains a party to the
lawsuit.
2
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
potentially criminally liable for misleading reporting. In October 2011, Becker
submitted to CHS' financial department an "EBIDTA," a calculation of earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization-it serves as an important
measure of financial health for publically traded companies. Becker's EBIDTA
report projected a $12 million operating loss for Rockwood the upcoming year.
Unbeknownst to Becker, when CHS acquired Rockwood it represented to
creditors that the Rockwood acquisition would incur only a $4 million operating
loss. To cover the discrepancy, CHS' financial supervisors allegedly directed
Becker to correct his EBIDTA to reflect the targeted $4 million loss. CHS did not
provide a basis for its low calculation. Becker refused, fearing that the projection
would mislead creditors and investors in violation of SOX.
Soon after, Rockwood's chief executive officer (CEO) initiated an
unscheduled evaluation of Becker's performance in which the CEO marked him
with an unacceptable performance rating and placed him on a performance
improvement plan: As part of his improvement plan, Becker was directed to edit
the EBIDTA projected loss to reflect the $4 million valuation. The CEO made
clear that Becker's refusal to do so put his position in jeopardy.
Becker sought legal counsel and decided to report his concerns upward: he
wrote to CHS' and Rockwood's CEOs, explaining his concern that CHS was
attempting to misrepresent its projected budget in violation of financial reporting
3
Becker v. Onty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
laws. He wrote that he felt compelled to resign unless CHS responded to his
concerns. The next day, CHS and Rockwood accepted Becker's resignation.
Becker filed two claims in Spokane County Superior Court: one for
wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and the other for a violation of
SOX. 2 CHS successfully removed the case to federal court, prompting Becker to
amend his complaint and omit his federal SOX claim. The federal court remanded
~· the case back to the state superior court. Becker's amended complaint alleged
wrongful discharge for Becker's refusal to violate financial reporting laws, which
resulted in economic and emotional distress damages.
CHS filed a CR 12(b)( 6) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
.. .
.a claim, contending that the jeopardy element of the tort had not been met because
there were adequate alternative means to protect the public policy of honesty in
corporate financial reporting. The trial court denied the motion, and CHS
successfully moved to have the question certified for interlocutory review under
RAP 2.3(b)(4). The Court of Appeals accepted review and determined that the
jeopardy element had been satisfied because the alternative administrative
enforcement mechanisms of SOX and Dodd-Frank were inadequate and therefore
2Becker also filed a whistle blower complaint with the United States Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, but i.t was dismissed. His appeal on that matter will be heard in
January 2016.
4
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
did not for~close th~ common law tort remedies for employees. Becker v. Cmty.
Health Sys., Inc., 182 Vvn. App. 935, 332 P.3d 1085 (2014), review granted, 182
Wn.2d 1009, 343 P.3d 759 (2015).
ANALYSIS
We review the trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss de novo. Factual
allegations are accepted as true, and unless it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts consistent with the complaint that would entitle
him or her to relief, the motion to dismiss must be denied. Corrigal v. Ball & Dodd
Funeral Horne, Inc., 89 Wn.2d 959, 961, 577 P.2d 580 (1978).
We accepted re':':iew of these three cases-Becker, Rose, and Rickman-to
determine whether o.ther nonexclusive administrative remedies nevertheless
. preempt the tort for wrongful discharge when those statutes are "adequate" to
promote th~ public policy. In our decision in Rose, we determined that the
"adequacy of alternative remedies" analysis misapprehends the role of the common
law and the underlying purpose of the tort. When other statutory remedies provide
alternativ~ remedies to protect the public policy, we concluded that exclusivity, not
adequacy, is the key inquiry. Applied to these facts, we agree with the Court of
Appeals that Becker's ~laim properly survives CHS' CR 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss.
5
Becker v. C!·nty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
The tort for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is a narrow
exception to the at-will doctrine. It is recognized as a means of encouraging
employees to follow the law and preventing employers from using the at-will
doctrine to subvert those efforts to promote public policy. To state a cause of
action, the plaintiff must plead and prove that his or her termination was motivated
by reasons that contravene an important mandate of public policy. We maintain a
1 ··,strict clarity requirement in which the plaintiff must establish that the public policy
is clearly legislatively or judicially recognized. Once established, the burden shifts
to the employer to plead and prove that the employee's termination was motivated
by other, legitimate, reasons. Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219,
232;_33, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984).
Because we construe this tort exception narrowly, wrongful discharge claims
··have generally been limited to four scenarios:
( 1) where employees are fired for refusing to commit an illegal act;
(2) where employees are fired for performing a public duty or
obligation, such as serving jury duty; (3) where employees are fired
for exercising a legal right or privilege, such as filing workers'
compensation claims; and ( 4) where employees are fired in retaliation
for reporting employer misconduct, i.e., whistle blowing.
Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931,936, 913 P.2d 377 (1996)
(citing Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612, 618, 782 P.2d 1002 (1989)). When the
plaintiffs c~1se does not fit neatly within one of these scenarios, a more refined
6
Beckerv . Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
analysis may be necessary, and the four-factor Perritt analysis may provide helpful
guidance. Gardner, 128 Wn.2d at 941 (citing HENRY H. PERRITT, JR., WORKPLACE
TORTS: RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES§ 3.7 (1991)). 3
J3ut such detailed analysis is unnecessary here. Becker's complaint alleges
that he was terminated for refusing to criminally misrepresent the EBIDTA report
of Rockwood's operating losses. His case falls squarely within the first scenario-
;c-:~termination for refusal to commit an illegal act. Taking his allegations as true, as
we must when reviewing amotion to dismiss, Becker has pleaded sufficient facts
to establish a claim that his discharge was in violation of clear, important public
policy.
As to the potential exclusionary effects of alternative statutes, we review
these statutes for exclusivity, not adequacy. For the same reasons discussed in
Rose, we reject the argument that the adequacy of alternative remedies approach
plays any legitimate role in our analysis. If SOX and Dodd-Frank already protect
' '
whistle-blowers from termination, then the availability of this alternative method
of recovery does not impact the employer's discretion to terminate employees
'
3
Under our adoption of the Perritt analysis, courts examine (1) the existence of a "clear
pul:?lk policy" (claritYelement), (2) whether "discouraging the conduct in which [the employee]
engaged would jeopardize the public policy" Qeopardy element), (3) whether the "public~policy­
linked conduct caused the dismissal" (causation element), and (4) whether the employer is "able
to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal" (absence of justification element). Gardner,
128 Wn.2d at 941. Gardner, 128 Wn.2d at 941. This framework was specifically helpful in
Gardner, a very factually unique case that demanded a more refined analysis.
7
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
without cause. The elimination of this adequacy requirement has no effect on the
breadth of the at-will doctrine; rather, its removal from our analysis merely
eliminates a loophc)le for employers who intentionally contravene public policy to
escape liability. Once.. a plaintiff can establish that the employer's actions violate an
important mandate of public policy, no legitimate reason exists for excusing those
actions.
In support of the "strict adequacy" requirement, CHS also argues that the
cottcurrent availability of this tort with the SOX and Dodd-Frank would undermine
the statutes' g;oal in encouraging whistle-blowers. SOX provides relief only for
those employees
' .. .
who actually report, not those who merely refuse to violate the
. . '
law. CHS argues that the tort would encourage employees to "sit on their hands"
rather than report violations because the concurrent availability of the tort would
, reward those employees for their indifference by providing relief when they
deserve none. Without addressing the numerous flaws to this argument, we
maintajn that it is with the proper authority of Congress and the legislature to
address that concern by expressly limiting remedies only to those provided by the
statute. Congress and the legislature possess greater relative competency to
determine how and when employees should be afforded remedies for their
termination, and retain the authority to determine when its administrative remedies
should be exclusive. Here, Congress expressly declared that the remedies available
8
Becker v. Cmty. Health S);s., Inc., No. 90946-6
under .SOX. and Dodd-Frank supplement rather than preclude state or federal
re,medies. See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(d); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(3). We respect
Congress' choi9e to avail these administrative remedies in addition to our existing
common law, and we decline to contravene that intent by barring Becker from full
adjudication of his claim ..
·.CONCLUSION
We agree with the Court of Appeals that Becker's allegations constitute a
compelling case for protection under a public policy tort. Taking these allegations as
true, as we must at this stage of review, Rockwood and CHS directed Becker to
commit a crime for which he would be personally responsible. By doing so,
"Rockwood and CHS forced him to choose between the consequences of disobeying
his employer and the consequences of disobeying criminal law." Becker, 182 Wn.
App, at 952 (citing DANIEL P. WESTMAN & NANCY M. MODESITT,
WHISTLEBLOWING: THELAWOFRETALIATORYDISCHARGEch. 5.II.A.1, at 101 (2d
ed. 2004)). When an employer intentionally uses the at-will doctrine to
subvert public poli_cy in this manner, it exposes itself to potential liability for
9
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
wrongful termination. We affirm the Court of Appeals.
WE CONCUR:
.~4-
10
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
Fairhurst, J. (dissenting)
No. 90946-6
FAIRHURST, J. (dissenting)-! dissent because section 806(a) of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, 1 provides an adequate
alternative remedy that should prevent Gregg Becker from bringing a claim for
wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
This is one of three cases before us that involves the jeopardy element of the
tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and that element's
corresponding adequacy of alternative remedies analysis. See Rose v. Anderson Hay
& Grain Co., No. 90975-0 (Wash. Sept. 17, 2015); Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross,
No. 91040-5 (Wash. Sept. 17, 2015). In Rose, I wrote a detailed dissent explaining
1
The majority also asserts that section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6, could provide an alternative statutory
remedy. The majority is correct that Dodd-Frank could provide an adequate alternative remedy.
However, since SOX provides an adequate remedy to preclude Gregg Becker's claim for wrongful
discharge, it is not necessary for this dissent to include an in depth discussion of the remedies
available through Dodd-Frank.
1
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
Fairhurst, J. (dissenting)
why I believe it is incorrect for the court to overrule precedent and adopt a new
analytical framework that eliminates the adequate alternative remedies analysis from
a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
Pursuant to the framework established in Rose, the majority finds that
Becker's claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy should not be
dismissed. Majority at 2. Because I disagree with the analytical framework
established in Rose, I would analyze Becker's claim for wrongful discharge in
violation of public policy under this court's precedent pre-Rose and would hold that
Becker's claim should be dismissed because he cannot establish the jeopardy
element.
Prior to Rose, to bring a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public
policy the plaintiff was required to prove ( 1) the existence of clear public policy (the
clarity element), (2) that discouraging the conduct in which he or she engaged would
jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element), and (3) the public-policy-linked
conduct caused the dismissal (the causation element). Gardner v. Loomis Armored,
Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931, 941, 913 P.2d 377 (1996). Additionally, the employer must
not be able to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal (the absence of
justification element).Jd. The only element at issue here is the jeopardy element.
2
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
Fairhurst, J. (dissenting)
The jeopardy element ensures that an employer's management decisions will
not be challenged unless a public policy is genuinely threatened. Id. at 941-42. To
establish jeopardy, the plaintiff must show that he or she "engaged in particular
conduct, and the conduct directly relates to the public policy, or was necessary for
the effective enforcement of the public policy." I d. at 945 (emphasis omitted). The
plaintiff also must show that other means of promoting the public policy are
inadequate. I d. In addition, the plaintiff must show how the threat of discharge from
his or her current position will discourage others from engaging in desirable conduct.
I d.
Before Rose, proving the jeopardy element was the most difficult when the
statute that declared the alleged public policy also provided a remedy. HENRY H.
PERRITT, JR., WORKPLACE TORTS: RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES§ 3.15, at 78 (1991). This
court found that if an available statutory remedy was adequate, then the plaintiff was
precluded from bringing a tort claim for wrongful discharge. See Korslund v.
DynCorp Tri-Cities Servs., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 168, 182-83, 125 P.3d 119 (2005);
Cudney v. ALSCO, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 524, 531-33, 259 P.3d 244 (2011); Hubbard v.
Spokane County, 146 Wn.2d 699, 717, 50 P.3d 602 (2002). This made sense because
the jeopardy element was intended to ensure that the tort claim was available only if
a public policy was genuinely threatened. If the public policy was already protected
3
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
Fairhurst, J. (dissenting)
under a statutory scheme, then there was no reason to recognize a tort remedy for
the employee.
It is important to emphasize that the issue in deciding whether an employee
has a claim for wrongful discharge is not whether the employee will be adequately
or fully compensated. "Instead, the inquiry is solely to decide whether the tort must
be recognized to ensure that the public policy at issue is adequately protected." Piel
v. City of Federal Way, 177 Wn.2d 604, 623, 306 P.3d 879 (2013) (Madsen, C.J.,
concurring in dissent).
The majority asserts that rejecting the adequacy analysis "merely eliminates a
loophole for employers who intentionally contravene public policy to escape
liability." Majority at 8. The adequacy of alternative remedies analysis did not create
a loophole for an employer to escape liability. Where an adequate statutory remedy
exists, the employer can be held liable to the same or nearly same extent under the
statute.
A statutory remedy was adequate if it provided comprehensive remedies. This
court also examined the statutory language to determine if the legislature indicated
that the statutory remedy, on its own, was not sufficient to vindicate the public
policy. See Piel, 177 Wn.2d at 617. This court found that a remedy was
comprehensive if it provided damages equivalent to those available in a tort action
4
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
Fairhurst, J. (dissenting)
and provided a process through which the employee could hold the employer liable.
See Korslund, 156 Wn.2d at 182-83.
In Korslund, we found that an administrative remedy in the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851, adequately protected the
public policy, such that the plaintiffs were precluded from asserting a claim for
wrongful discharge. Korslund, 156 Wn.2d at 181-83. The ERA provided an
administrative process for adjudicating whistle-blower complaints and required a
violator to reinstate the employee to his or her former position with the same
compensation, terms and conditions of employment, back pay, and compensatory
damages. ld.
Here, the statutory remedy in SOX is an adequate alternative remedy to
protect the alleged public policy. SOX provides comprehensive whistle-blower
protections that apply even where an employee believes that misconduct is about to
occur. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1514A(a)(1), 1341. SOX protects persons who disclose
information that they reasonably believe constitutes a violation of Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) rules or regulations when the information is provided
to "a person with supervisory authority over the employee (or such other person
working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate
misconduct)." 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1)(C)). By enacting SOX, Congress intended
5
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
Fairhurst, J. (dissenting)
to dismantle a corporate culture that discouraged employees from reporting
fraudulent behavior internally or to outside authorities. Day v. Staples, Inc., 555 F.3d
42, 52 (1st Cir. 2009).
SOX provides that no company or agent of that company may discharge an
employee because of any lawful act done by that employee to provide information
or assist in an investigation regarding any conduct that "the employee reasonably
believes constitutes a violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or
regulation of the [SEC], or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against
shareholders." 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1). SOX applies even if the company attempts
to commit fraud. Id.; see 18 U.S.C. § 1341. A person who alleges discharge in
violation of SOX may seek relief by filing a complaint with the secretary of labor.
18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(1)(A). This action should be brought within 180 days after
the date on which the violation occurs. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(D). 2 If an employee
prevails, he or she shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee
whole. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(1). SOX specifically provides that relief shall include
.reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee had, back pay with
2
18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(1)(B) provides that an action at law or equity can be brought in
federal district court, if the secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days and there is
no showing the delay is due to bad faith of complainant.
6
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
Fairhurst, J. (dissenting)
interest, and compensation for any special damages that were the result of the
discrimination. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(2).
The remedies available through SOX are very similar to the remedies
available in the ERA examined in Korslund. Under SOX, compensation for
employees includes back pay with interest and compensation for any special
damages. SOX provides that a prevailing employee is entitled to "all relief necessary
to make the employee whole." 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(l). This may include relief for
noneconomic damages, such as emotional distress. Halliburton, Inc. v. Admin.
Review Bd., 771 F.3d 254, 267 (5th Cir. 2014); see also Lockheed Martin Corp. v.
Admin. Review Bd., 717 F.3d 1121, 1138-39 (lOth Cir. 2013).
Other courts that have examined the remedy available m SOX, have
determined that SOX provides an adequate remedy such that the tort claim for
wrongful discharge should be precluded. See Nunnally v. XO Commc 'ns, No. C07-
1323JLR, 2009 WL 112849, at* 12 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 15, 2009) (court order) (noting
that SOX provided an adequate means for promoting the public policy); see also
Lawson v. FMR LLC, 724 F. Supp. 2d 141, 165-66 (D. Mass. 2010), rev'd on other
grounds, 670 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2012), rev'd and remanded, _U.S._, 134 S. Ct.
1158, 188 L. Ed. 2d 158 (2014). 3
3
However, in Willis v. Comcast of Oregon II, Inc., No. 06-1536-AA, 2007 WL 3170987,
at *2 (D. Or. Oct. 25, 2007) (court order), the court found that the SOX remedy did not preclude
7
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
Fairhurst, J. (dissenting)
Since SOX's remedies are comprehensive, I would next examine the statutory
language to determine if Congress indicated that the statutory remedy is insufficient
to vindicate the public policy. SOX contains a nonpreemption clause that reads,
"Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or
remedies of any employee under any Federal or State law, or under any collective
bargaining agreement." 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(d). Because the statute declares that its
remedies do not preclude others, the Court of Appeals found that there was the
'"strongest possible evidence'" that the statutory remedies were inadequate on their
own to promote the public policy at issue. Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 182
Wn. App. 935, 948, 332 P.3d 1085 (2014) (quoting Pie!, 177 Wn.2d at 617). The
majority also finds that the nonpreemption clause indicated that the remedy in SOX
is not exclusive and does not preclude the tort action. Majority at 9.
The nonpreemption clause in SOX is different from the statutory language at
issue in Pie!. Chapter 41.56 RCW, the statute at issue in Pie!, established the
statutory remedies available through the Public Employee Relations Commission,
the tort of wrongful discharge because the legislature indicated that this statute was not intended
to preempt available state law claims. In Oregon, to defend against a claim of wrongful discharge
in violation of public policy, the defendant must demonstrate that the remedy for violation of the
statute is adequate in comparison to the remedy available under a common law tort action and that
the legislature intended the statute to abrogate the common law. Olsen v. Deschutes County, 204
Or. App. 7, 14, 127 P.3d 655 (2006). In Washington, prior to Rose, an employer did not need to
show that the legislature intended the statute to abrogate the common law. Instead, the employee
needed to show there was not an adequate alternative remedy such that the tort claim is not
necessary to protect the public policy. See Korslund, 156 Wn.2d at 183.
8
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
Fairhurst, J. (dissenting)
and contained a provision that stated, "'The provisions of this chapter are intended
to be additional to other remedies and shall be liberally construed to accomplish their
purpose.'" Pie!, 177 Wn.2d at 617 (quoting RCW 41.56.905). Unlike the statute in
Pie!, nothing in SOX states that the remedy in the statute is intended to be additional
to other remedies. Instead, the nonpreemption clause in SOX states that it should not
preclude other remedies. 4 While SOX does not expressly preclude the tort claim, its
language does not indicate that its remedy is inadequate. The question this court
should ask when evaluating an alternative statute is not whether the tort is precluded,
but whether the statute adequately protects the public policy such that the tort claim
is not necessary. See Korslund, 156 Wn.2d at 183. Since the remedies provided by
the statute are comprehensive, the public policy is adequately protected and the
public policy will not be genuinely threatened by dismissing Becker's tort claim.
Because I disagree with the analytical framework established in Rose and find
that the adequacy of alternative remedies analysis is necessary to establish a claim
for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, I dissent. Becker cannot satisfy
the jeopardy element of the tort because he cannot show that SOX is an inadequate
4
The ERA-the statute examined in Korslund-contained a similar nonpreemption clause
as in SOX. See 42 U.S.C. § 5851(h) ("This section may not be construed to expand, diminish, or
otherwise affect any right otherwise available to an employee under Federal or State law.");
Korslund, 156 Wn.2d at 182-83. This court found that nonpreemption clauses, like in the ERA,
did not indicate that the statutory remedy was inadequate. Korslund, 156 Wn.2d at 183; see Pie!,
177 Wn.2d at 617.
9
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
Fairhurst, J. (dissenting)
remedy to promote the alleged public policy. Congress established a comprehensive
statutory remedial scheme in SOX. The remedial scheme is adequate to protect the
public policy. I would dismiss Becker's claim and reverse the Court of Appeals.
10
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 90946-6
Fairhurst, J. (dissenting)
;laM~.g'
~7~
``c·9·
11