Washington Labor and Employment Blog
The latest case law and legal developments in Washington labor & employment law.
By: Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In Celis v. City of Lakewood, a Hispanic officer alleged that he was constructively discharged after he resigned pending a disciplinary determination after his Loudermill hearing. The Court found that the officer’s fear of potential termination and decommission was not enough to amount to constructive discharge and granted the City’s motion for summary judgment.
By: Jordan L. Jones
In King County (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 587), PERC held that ATU Local 587 committed a ULP when it submitted a permissive subject of bargaining to interest arbitration. Examiner De La Rosa found that King County’s decision to move the Millwrights from the Vehicle Maintenance Section to the Power & Facilities Section was a managerial prerogative and therefore a permissive subject of bargaining.
By: Jordan L. Jones
In City of Walla Walla, PERC held that the Walla Walla Police Guild did not waive by inaction its right to bargain a department policy change.
By: Erica Shelley Nelson & Sarah Burke
In Bu
sey v. Richland School District, the Eastern District of Washington found that a reasonable jury could conclude that a Superintendent had been wrongfully discriminated against for his extramarital affair with a para-educator. In his complaint, the Superintendent alleged the district had violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”), in terminating him because of his extramarital affair. The district court found that because the Superintendent had provided direct evidence of this claim and a reasonable jury could find that the school district’s proffered reasons were pretextual, the claim could survive summary judgment and move forward.
By: Christopher J. Casillas & Jordan L. Jones
In Central 
Washington University, the Commission concluded that the existing standard for determining whether an employer had a duty to bargain a decision to contract out bargaining unit work was confusing and adopted a new standard. The Commission also affirmed the Examiner’s decision that (1) the employer contracted out bargaining unit work and (2) that the employer failed to provide requested information. The Commission reversed the Examiner’s decision and found that the employer circumvented the union and modified the remedy to include a monetary remedy for the employer’s failure to bargain the decision to contract out bargaining unit work.
By: Erica Shelley Nelson & Sarah Burke
In Michelbrink v. Wash. State Patrol, Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals allowed a state trooper to proceed to trial in his civil suit for damages stemming from a compression fracture and bulged disk in his back under the “deliberate intention” exception of the Industrial Insurance Act (IIA). In his complaint, the trooper claimed that his employer’s knowledge that an injury would occur was enough to qualify under the deliberate intention exception. The Court of Appeals found that while every element of the deliberate intention exception should be narrowly construed, an employer does not need actual knowledge of the specific injury that occurs to be found liable.
By: Christopher J. Casillas & Jordan L. Jones
In State – Washington State Patrol, Examiner Page A. Garcia held that the State failed to provide relevant information regarding documents and communication between the State and a consultant concerning a compensation survey, which was requested by the Union for contract negotiations. PERC further held that by the State’s refusal to make individuals from the consultant’s firm available to the Union or, in the alternative, provide the Union the information it was seeking from the consultant regarding the compensation survey, the employer breached its good faith bargaining obligations.
