August 17, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Sarah Derry
In Community Transit, PERC Examiner Ramerman held that installation of video cameras on buses is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. Examiner Ramerman reasoned that: (1) video cameras had already been used in the buses, albeit in a more limited capacity; (2) bus drivers have no reasonable expectation of privacy while driving the buses; and (3) the cameras could further the employer’s significant interest in passenger and driver safety. Based on these three determinations, Examiner Ramerman concluded that the employer is not required to bargain with the bus drivers’ union over the camera installation.
Filed Under: Scope of Bargaining
August 14, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Sarah Derry
In City of Walla Walla, Examiner Slone-Gomez held that the City of Walla Walla did not unilaterally change the off-duty weapon policy for police officers and sergeants. The Examiner determined that the employer provided notice and opportunity to bargain the policy, but that the Guild waived its right to bargain through inaction.
Filed Under: Scope of Bargaining
August 13, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Sarah Derry
In Kitsap County, PERC overturned Examiner Ramerman’s decision that Kitsap County engaged in bad faith bargaining. The Commission considered two separate issues: (1) whether to consider Kitsap County’s brief even though it was submitted late; and (2) whether Kitsap County breached its duty to bargain in good faith with the Juvenile Detention Officers’ Guild. On the first issue, the Commission refused to consider the employer’s late brief, emphasizing that its procedural rules are to be followed in every case. PERC characterized the late-filing as acting “in complete disregard of our procedural rules” and that it had “previously cautioned the employer that it disregards the Commission’s rules at its own peril.”
Filed Under: Bad Faith Bargaining
July 29, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Sarah Derry
In Warden School District, PERC Examiner Whitney considered two unrelated issues: First, the employer did not commit a ULP by not bargaining with the union over whether to adopt a perpetual calendar for the school year. Examiner Whitney found that: (1) the employer had been using the same calendar adoption process for nine years, so there was no change, and (2) although the union wanted to adopt a “perpetual calendar,” the Union never directly proposed it, so the school district did not refuse to bargain. Second, Examiner Whitney determined that the school district did not interfere with a teacher’s union rights by threatening to fire him if he did not take on another class, in part because another teacher testified that she did not think the complaining teacher had been threatened.
Filed Under: Bad Faith Bargaining, Scope of Bargaining
July 24, 2015
By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owens
In Garcia v. Cintas Corp. No. 3, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a Washington District Court’s dismissal of an employee’s claim that her employer failed to accommodate her disability in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). In her complaint, the employee claimed that her employer failed to accommodate her wrist injury after it worsened months after the injury first occurred. The District Court found that the employee did not provide enough evidence that she notified her employer that her current work would aggravate her injury or that she was substantially limited, so it dismissed her case. The Court of Appeals agreed with the dismissal of her case, and affirmed the District Court’s decision.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination
July 22, 2015
By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owens
In Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1, et al. v. City of Camden, et al., a New Jersey District Court dismissed several officers’ claims that they had been retaliated against, and one officer’s claim that his FMLA rights had been denied by the City. In their complaint, the officers claimed that several defendants had retaliated against them or interfered with their FMLA rights after they spoke out against a “directed patrol” policy. The District Court dismissed all of their claims because the officers failed to show that their poor performance under the policy was not the primary reason for their transfers. The Court also found that there was no evidence that the defendants denied one of the officers his rights under the FMLA or harmed him.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination, Free Speech Rights
July 16, 2015
By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owens
In Brownell v. Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1, a Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of a former public utility employee’s disability discrimination lawsuit. In his complaint, the worker claimed that he was terminated for violation of work rules that were selectively enforced against him. The Court of Appeals found that the selective enforcement of the rules and lack of negative performance reviews showed that the worker may have a valid claim for disability discrimination. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the worker’s claim and allowed him to bring his claim to trial.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination
July 2, 2015
By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owens
In Mesmer v. Charter Communications, Inc., a District Court in Washington found that a correspondence coordinator had claims of interference with his FMLA rights, failure to accommodate his PTSD, and sexual harassment under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). In his complaint, the coordinator claimed that he suffered from PTSD symptoms and his employer failed to accommodate his disability, subjected him to sexual harassment by a male coworker, and his employer willfully violated his FMLA rights by firing him for attempting to take medical leave. Learn more about harassment in the workplace from an employment lawyer. They can also define harassment in the workplace more clearly for you. The District Court found that the coordinator had stated sufficient facts to support his claims, and that his lawsuit should be heard at trial.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination, Gender/Pregnancy Discrimination
July 2, 2015
By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owens
In Oberti v. Pacific Maritime Association, et al. the District Court held that an employee could continue a claim for failure to accommodate under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) although his “shy bladder syndrome” is not considered a disability under the ADA (The ADA has since been amended to the Americans with Disabilities Act As Amended (ADAAA). Under the new ADAAA, which greatly broadened the medical conditions which constitute a “disability”, “shy bladder syndrome” would probably be considered a “disability”.). In his suit, the employee claimed that his employer failed to accommodate his disability when it discharged him for failing to provide a urine sample for a drug test. The District Court found that the employee showed that his disability was medically diagnosable and substantially limited his employment, his employer did not engage in the interactive process, and his employer did not provide accommodation.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination
May 14, 2015
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Jordan Jones
In Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81 v. Spokane Educ. Ass’n, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division Three held that a provisional elementary counselor was not eligible for arbitration under the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA).
