Background
Martin Heimbigner, Solgen Enterprises’ former chief financial officer, alleged that Solgen prematurely recognized revenue in violation of generally accepted accounting principles. He said he and the company’s outside auditor raised those concerns with Solgen’s board, which included Edgewater Services executives, but the board declined to revise the financial statements.
Heimbigner alleged that Edgewater executives Gregory Jones and Matthew Snyder pressured him and the auditor to change their conclusions. After he refused, Snyder terminated him. Heimbigner sued Edgewater, Jones, and Snyder for wrongful termination in violation of Washington public policy and intentional interference with contractual relations. The district court dismissed the wrongful-termination claim with prejudice, concluding that only Solgen, the direct employer, could be liable; it also dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, with its reasoning on that issue reserved for the court’s eventual final disposition. It did not finally decide the wrongful-termination claim.
Instead, the panel certified two unsettled Washington-law questions to the Washington Supreme Court: whether common-law wrongful-termination claims may proceed against indirect employers, and whether they may proceed against individuals such as officers, managers, or supervisors. The panel concluded the answers are necessary to resolve the appeal and involve important public-policy issues with broad application.
The Ninth Circuit stayed further proceedings on the certified questions, withdrew the matter from submission in pertinent part, and administratively closed the appeal pending the Washington Supreme Court’s decision whether to accept certification and, if accepted, its answers.
Key Takeaways
- The order does not decide whether Edgewater, Jones, or Snyder is liable for wrongful termination.
- Washington’s highest court has not resolved whether an indirect employer may face this common-law claim.
- Federal district courts in Washington have reached conflicting conclusions on individual liability for wrongful termination.
Why It Matters
The Washington Supreme Court’s response could define the potential defendants in public-policy wrongful-termination cases, particularly where a parent, investor, management company, or its executives exercise substantial influence over employment decisions.
For now, the Ninth Circuit’s appeal remains pending, and the certified questions—not a merits ruling on wrongful termination—are the operative result.