Wrongful Termination
Heimbigner v. Edgewater Services (9th Cir., 2026): Wrongful Termination Questions Certified to Washington
Updated
In Heimbigner v. Edgewater Services, LLC, the Ninth Circuit declined to decide a wrongful termination appeal and instead certified two unresolved questions of Washington law to the Washington Supreme Court: whether common-law wrongful termination claims may be brought against indirect employers, and whether they may be brought against individuals such as officers, managers, or supervisors. The panel stayed further proceedings pending the state court’s response.
Background
Martin Heimbigner served as chief financial officer of Solgen Enterprises, LLC, a Washington solar company. Edgewater Services, an investment advisory firm, had acquired a 30% interest in Solgen, and Edgewater executives Gregory Jones and Matthew Snyder directed much of Heimbigner’s recruitment and later played roles in Solgen’s operations.
Heimbigner alleged that he refused to certify Solgen’s financial statements after concluding the company was prematurely recognizing revenue in violation of accounting principles. He claimed that Jones and Snyder pressured him to change that conclusion and, when he refused, that Snyder terminated him.
Heimbigner sued Edgewater, Jones, and Snyder in the Eastern District of Washington for common-law wrongful termination and intentional interference with contractual relations. The district court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the wrongful termination claim with prejudice, reasoning that only a direct employer can be liable and that Solgen, not Edgewater, was Heimbigner’s direct employer.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit concluded the district court erred on personal jurisdiction, which left the panel to decide whether the wrongful termination claim was properly dismissed.
Why the Court Certified the Questions
The panel found that the appeal turns on two questions of Washington law that the Washington Supreme Court has never resolved. Under Revised Code of Washington section 2.60.020, a federal court may certify a question when it is necessary to ascertain state law to dispose of the case and that law has not been clearly determined.
On indirect employer liability, the panel observed that only one published Washington Court of Appeals decision, Awana v. Port of Seattle, has considered the issue, and it left open whether an indirect, de facto employer that controls a plaintiff’s employment can be liable. Federal district courts addressing the point have relied exclusively on Awana, which the panel found unpersuasive as guidance.
On individual liability, the panel noted that the Washington Supreme Court has likewise not addressed whether officers, managers, or supervisors can be personally liable, and that federal district courts have split—some predicting the state court would recognize such claims and at least one concluding it would not.
The Ninth Circuit did not decide the merits. It certified to the Washington Supreme Court whether Washington law recognizes common-law wrongful termination claims against indirect employers and against individuals such as officers, managers, or supervisors, and it stayed the appeal pending that court’s answer.
The Competing Policy Arguments
The panel described the arguments each side pressed. Heimbigner pointed to the Washington Law Against Discrimination, which defines “employer” broadly to include any person acting in an employer’s interest directly or indirectly, and to cases in which the Washington Supreme Court has looked to that statute in wrongful termination disputes.
Defendants emphasized the Washington Supreme Court’s repeated description of wrongful termination as a “narrow” exception to at-will employment. The panel concluded that these are the kind of important public policy questions with broad application that the state’s high court should decide in the first instance.
What This Means for You
This order does not resolve whether Washington law allows common-law wrongful termination claims against indirect employers or against individual officers, managers, or supervisors; it refers both questions to the Washington Supreme Court and pauses the appeal. It touches wrongful termination disputes governed by Washington law in which a plaintiff seeks to hold someone other than the direct employer responsible.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.