By: Cynthia McNabb and Clive Pontusson

In Peiffer v. Pro-Cut Concrete, an employee sued his employer for altering his timecards and shorting him on reported wages. Charles Peiffer claimed that Pro-Cut had unfairly withheld his wages. He filed a complaint with the Washington Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) who took over fourteen (14) months to investigate without making any findings. Not wanting to wait further for L&I to complete their investigation, Peiffer hired an employment attorney and sued the employer for wrongful termination and the withholding of wages. In the lower court proceeding, the two sides argued over whether or not his decision to file a complaint with L&I had given him extra time to file his lawsuit. The Washington Court of Appeals decided that Peiffer was allowed extra time to file a lawsuit despite the fact that L&I had not yet completed its investigation. The Court also decided that Peiffer may have a claim for wrongful discharge, and sent the case back for a new trial. It can sometimes be difficult for individuals to want to go up against a large company, even when they feel they are fully in the right. In these cases, a whistleblower lawyer can provide their assistance in trying to protect the rights of individuals in this predicament. Individuals who are filing a lawsuit should also know what to expect from a process server and other legal experts they are hiring. In addition, employees who are facing employment discrimination aside from other employment issues may consider consulting with Anaheim employment lawyers for immediate legal assistance.

[Read more…]

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Serna v. Board of Commissioners of Rio Ariba County, a Court held that detention center employees had a viable lawsuit that they should be paid for pre-shift briefings.

[Read more…]

By Erica Shelley Nelson and Harrison Owens

In Demetrio v. Sakuma Brothers Farms, Inc., the Washington State Supreme Court found that piece rate workers must be paid for rest breaks, and they must be paid the higher rate of pay, either the minimum wage or the regular rate of pay.  In their complaint, agricultural workers paid based on the number of “pieces” of output they produced asked the Court to determine whether they were entitled to paid rest breaks, and if so how much they must be paid.  The Court stated that piece rate workers were entitled to paid rest breaks under Washington law, and the rate had to be the greater of workers’ regular rate of pay or the applicable minimum wage.

[Read more…]

By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson

In Moore v. Washington State Health Care Authority, the Washington State Supreme Court determined that State employees who were wrongfully denied health care benefits were entitled to the value that the benefits would have cost the State. Although the State argued that it should only be responsible for the out-of-pocket costs that employees paid for healthcare during the time they were denied benefits, the Court determined otherwise. The Court decided that such a method for measuring what the State owed the employees would fail to account for all of the damage that was inflicted on the employees through the denial of benefits.

[Read more…]

By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson

In City of Medina v. Skinner, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, determined that the Civil Service Commission lacks the authority to award back pay for wrongful terminations or suspensions. The City of Medina asked the State Court system for relief from a Commission decision in which the Commission modified the discipline of a Medina Police Lieutenant and specifically awarded him back pay and benefits at a pay scale starting from the time when he would have returned from the modified suspension. The Court determined that the Commission lacked the authority to award back pay and overruled the Commission’s decision, as far as it ordered the City to pay the former Lieutenant.

[Read more…]

By Erica Shelley Nelson and Jordan L. Jones

In Rekhter v. Wash. Social & Health Servs. Dep’t, the Washington Supreme Court (WASC) upheld a jury finding that the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS or State) violated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in its contracts with in-home care providers (providers). The WASC also held that the trial judge correctly granted summary judgment to DSHS on the providers’ claims that the State (1) wrongfully withheld wages in violation of RCW 49.52.050 and .070 and (2) failed to pay the providers for all hours worked, in violation of the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA).

[Read more…]

By Erica Shelley Nelson and Jordan L. Jones

In Becerra Becerra v. Expert Janitorial, LLC, the Washington Supreme Court (WASC) held that a trial court improperly granted summary judgment to Fred Meyer on the issue of “joint employers” and remanded for further proceedings. The WASC stated that “[s]imply put, we find the trial court did not consider all the relevant factors at summary judgment or sufficiently identify why it deemed certain factors to be not relevant.”

[Read more…]

By Jordan L. Jones

In Jensen v. Lincoln County, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division Three (Appeals Court) held that a County Crusher Foreman (Grievant) was not entitled to compensation for the time he spent driving to job sites. The Appeals Court found that the time the Grievant spent commuting to work did not fall under the definition of “hours worked” as defined by the Washington Department of Labor and Industries (DLI).

[Read more…]