Washington Labor and Employment Blog
The latest case law and legal developments in Washington labor & employment law.
By Jim Cline
In City of Seattle, Examiner Christopher Casillas dismissed a complaint after finding the Complainant failed to satisfy each element necessary for a discrimination prima facie case. The Complainant had been placed on administrative reassignment while the City investigated an incident involving Complainant; however, he did not lose any pay, leave, or benefits while on reassignment, and thus, failed to prove a deprivation of rights.
Jim Cline
In Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Examiner Greer dismissed the complaint, holding that the Employer did not discriminate against the Complainant, who alleged she was terminated after communicating her intent to join a grievance. However, Examiner Greer found the Employer’s reasons for termination “were not pretextual for discrimination, nor substantially motivated by union animus.”
By Jim Cline and Abagail Klonsinski
In Benton County, PERC Examiner Leonard dismissed the complaint alleging that the employer discriminated when it denied the complainant light duty. Leonard concluded that there was insubstantial evidence to support complainant’s argument that his union activity was a substantial motivating factor in placing him on light duty.
By: Chris Casillas and Sarah E. Derry
In State-Washington State Patrol, PERC Examiner Slone-Gomez dismissed the Washington State Patrol Troopers Association’s complaint, holding that the State did not cancel a union board member’s temporary disability leave in reprisal for his union activities.
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 Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In Sambasivan v. Kadlec Medical Center, Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals, overturned the dismissal of a doctor’s racial discrimination and retaliation claims. The Indian doctor sued the Hospital after it implemented a proficiency standard that prevented him from practicing his specialty. The trial court dismissed his claims, finding that the doctor lacked the necessary relationships with the Hospital to allow his lawsuit. However, the Court of Appeals reversed that decision, holding that such claims could be brought when the Hospital interfered with the doctor’s right to make additional contracts with the Hospital and obtain new patients when the doctor was acting as an independent contractor for the Hospital in certain functions.
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In Becker v. Community Health Systems, Inc., Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals determined that a Chief Financial Officer could sue his former employer for firing him when he refused to submit a false or misleading financial report. Although the Company sought to dismiss the CFO’s lawsuit, the Court decided that the former CFO could pursue a state common law claim for “wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.”
By Chris Casillas and Jordan L. Jones
In Pierce County, PERC Examiner Lisa A. Hartrich held that the Employer did not commit an unfair labor practice (ULP). Examiner Hartrich stated that the Union did not make a prima facie case for their discrimination claim and that the interference allegations were untimely filed.
By Chris Casillas and Jordan L. Jones
In Spokane County, PERC Examiner Dianne Ramerman held that Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich did not interfere nor dominate or assist the Spokane County Deputy Sheriff’s Association when he sent an e-mail to the Union.
By Chris Casillas and Jordan L. Jones
In Port of Anacortes, PERC Examiner Jamie L. Siegel held that the Port did not unilaterally change a past practice when it ended maintenance mechanic David Bost’s light duty assignment. Examiner Siegel also found that the Port did not discriminate against Mr. Bost for union activity when it ended his light duty assignment.
