The Washington Supreme Court has created two exceptions to the doctrine of termination at will:

• First, if an employer creates an atmosphere of job security and promises to follow specific pre-discharge procedures or to discharge only if specified conditions occur, the employer can be obligated to act in accord with those promises.  For example, if an employer promises to follow a progressive discipline scheme prior to termination (e.g., written warnings), the employer may be obligated to do so.

• Second, an employer can be liable for wrongful discharge if the termination is for a reason that contravenes a clear mandate of public policy. To qualify as a public policy for purposes of the wrongful discharge tort, a policy must be “truly public” and sufficiently clear. The public policy exception has generally been recognized in four different situations: where an employee is fired (1) for refusing to commit an illegal act; (2) for performing a public duty or obligation; (3) for exercising a legal right or privilege; and (4) in retaliation for reporting employer misconduct.

 Washington courts use a four-part test for analyzing wrongful discharge claims involving alleged violations of public policy:

1. The plaintiff must prove the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element);

2. The plaintiff must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element);

3. The plaintiff must prove that the public-policy-linked conduct caused the dismissal (the causation element);

4. The defendant must not be able to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal (absence of justification element).

To qualify as a public policy for purposes of the wrongful discharge tort, a policy must be “truly public” and sufficiently clear.