Washington Labor and Employment Blog
The latest case law and legal developments in Washington labor & employment law.
By Jim Cline
A recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision made to provide labor organizations an additional tool in their efforts to enforce final and binding arbitration awards. As explained in our recent article, in addition to enforcing such awards under State contract law, labor organizations in concert with the affected employee, may be able to argue that refusal to abide by “final and binding” arbitration awards also constitute a violation of constitutional due process rights.
By Cynthia McNabb
On January 6, 2013, Officer Tam Guthrie of the Mountlake Terrace Police Department was ordered reinstated to his position as an Officer for the City of Mountlake Terrace. Arbitrator Mark Brennan also awarded that the City of Mountlake Terrace pay full back pay and benefits to Tam Guthrie from the date of termination based on his findings that the City of Mountlake Terrace did not have just cause to terminate the longtime employee. [Read more…]
By Kate Acheson
I
n LaCoursiere v. CamWest Development, Inc., the Washington Appeals Court dismissed an employee’s claims under the Wage Rebate Act (“WRA”), RCW 49.52. The employee, Shaun LaCoursiere, claimed his employer, CamWest Development, violated the WRA by depositing a portion of his bonuses in an investment account and by reimbursing only 60 percent – the vested portion – of the investment account upon his termination.
By Kate Acheson
The Washington State Supreme Court found in Wash. State Nurses Ass’n v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., that employees were inadequately compensated for missing 15-minute breaks mandated by their Collective Bargaining Agreement when they worked over 40 hours in a week, because they were entitled to overtime pay for 10 of those minutes (the state-required break time). [Read more…]
By Kate Acheson
When a heterosexual delivery truck driver sued for being called “Big Gay Al” at work, the Washington State Court of Appeals found, in Davis v. Fred’s Appliance Inc.,that the perception of homosexuality is not protected by Washington’s law against discrimination (“WLAD”), RCW 49.60.
By Kate Acheson
In Kiona Benton School District, Decision 11563 (EDUC, 2012), the union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labor practice, in retaliating against three, school district employees who exercised their statutory right to participate in an earlier PERC ULP proceeding. PERC hearing examiner Steve Irvin concluded that even though the employees had engaged in protected activities and the employer’s layoffs arguably violated the collective bargaining agreement, the union did not carry its burden of proof that the employer actions were pretextual.
By Kate Acheson
In Sterling Savings Bank v. Stanley, a Washington District Court rejected Sterling Bank’s argument that receipt of federal Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds, restricts them from making any payment to its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mrs. Heidi Stanley, after her termination. The Court found that TARP was not intended to prevent monetary recovery in discrimination suits like Mrs. Stanley’s.
By Kate Acheson
The Washington State Supreme Court found, in Wash. State Nurses Ass’n v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., that employees were inadequately compensated for missing 15-minute breaks mandated by their Collective Bargaining Agreement because they were entitled to overtime pay for 10 of those minutes (the state-required break time), when they worked over 40 hours in a week.
By Jim Cline
The recent ruling of the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Scavone v. Pennsylvania State Police), governing preemployment tattoo policies, addresses some interesting issues and is explained in a recent blog article. Our readers should be aware, that these issues are not controlling, or in any way dispositive of employers separate obligations under collective bargaining laws.
By Kate Acheson
In Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, an asbestos office program coordinator at the University of Washington, Debra Loeffelholz, alleged that James Lukehart, her supervisor from 2003 to early 2006, discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation. Loeffelholz claimed the sexual-orientation-based discrimination created a hostile work environment. Upon review, the State Supreme Court found that Loeffelholz’s claims before the enactment of the amendment adding sexual orientation as a protected class in Washington were unrecoverable because the amendment is not retroactive. However, the Court also found that a jury must resolve the questions of fact arising from the last, potentially post-amendment incident.
