there is no precise line of demarcation dividing matters that are the subject of public policies from matters purely personal, a survey of cases in other States involving retaliatory discharges shows that a matter must strike at the heart of a citizen’s social rights, duties, and responsibilities before the tort will be allowed. Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612, 782 P.2d 1002, 1006 (1989) (en banc) (citation omitted). Little argued that Windermere discharged her because she made a complaint about sexual harassment. The Washington Supreme Court held recently that Revised Code of Washington sections 49.12.200 and 49.60.010 embody a clearly articulated public policy condemning sex discrimination in employment. See Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wash.2d 58, 69, 993 P.2d 901, 907 (2000) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Relatedly, discharging an employee because of
holding that an employer did not regard the employee as disabled because it called the employee back from disability leave to work on a special project holding that the supervisors failure to give employee new assignments once she announced that she was pregnant and that her maternity leave would occur during the two months prior to the employers busiest time did not constitute evidence of discrimination holding that an employer was justified in demoting plaintiff after she returned from maternity leave because plaintiff could not rebut the employers evidence that she was having performance problems before she went on leave and that additional performance problems were discovered while she was on leave holding that discharging an employee because she was on maternity leave would violate that poli cy holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave