Wlasiuk v. Whirlpool Corp.

Full title: Joe M. WLASIUK, Respondent, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, a Delaware…

Court: Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

Date published: Mar 17, 1997

932 P.2d 1266 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997)

Opinion

932 P.2d 1266 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1997) Joe M. WLASIUK, Respondent, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Appellant. and Louis Fred Huggins, Jr. and Jane Doe Huggins, a marital community, Defendants. No. 33651-7-I. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. March 17, 1997

       ORDER CHANGING OPINION

       The panel has determined that the opinion filed March 11, 1996, 81 Wash.App. 163, 914 P.2d 102, should be changed as follows:

On Page 11, [page 177 of 81 Wash.App., page 112 of 914 P.2d] add a footnote following the caption "IV. JURY INSTRUCTIONS." The text of the footnote shall read: "The text of the disputed instructions was not included in the original unpublished opinion. For convenience of the reader, the full text can be found in Appendix A."

       The text of Appendix A shall be as follows:

Appendix A--Jury Instructions

Court's Instruction No. 15:

       In determining whether defendant breached its obligations under the handbook, you must not substitute your judgment for defendant's in determining whether plaintiff should be discharged. You must defer to defendant's finding unless you conclude that defendant's decision was arbitrary, capricious or illegal; was not based on facts supported by substantial evidence; or was not based on facts reasonably believed by defendant to be true.

Whirlpool's Proposed Instruction:

       In determining whether defendant breached its obligations under the policies, you must not substitute your judgment for defendant's in determining whether plaintiff was insubordinate. You must defer to defendant's finding that plaintiff was insubordinate unless you conclude that defendant's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or illegal, was not based on facts supported by substantial evidence, and was not based on facts reasonably believed by defendant to be true.

       Further, you must not substitute your judgment for defendant's regarding the appropriate penalty to be imposed for plaintiff's insubordination.

Court's Instruction No. 14:

       If you find that defendant's employee handbook was an enforceable obligation, then you must determine whether defendant materially breached that obligation when plaintiff was discharged. A breach is a failure to perform a duty which has become absolute.

       If the handbook is an enforceable obligation, then plaintiff must also comply with his obligations under the handbook. In order to prevail, defendant must prove that plaintiff materially breached his obligations under the handbook.

       Now, therefore, it is hereby

       ORDERED that the opinion of this court filed in the above case on March 11, 1996 is changed as set forth above. It is further

       ORDERED that the remainder of the opinion shall remain the same.