May 14, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Jordan Jones
In Port of Bellingham, PERC Examiner Martin held that the employer did not commit a ULP by transferring daily inspection duties away from its maintenance employees without first providing an opportunity to bargain. Examiner Martin noted that the Port did not have an obligation to bargain in this case because (1) the work was so briefly assigned to the maintenance bargaining unit, (2) non-bargaining unit employees had also been performing the work, and (3) by the time the work was transferred to other port employees it was fundamentally different from the maintenance bargaining unit’s regular work.
Filed Under: Scope of Bargaining
April 28, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Jordan Jones
In Central Washington University, PERC Examiner Slone-Gomez held that the University committed a ULP when it contracted out a roofing project without first providing notice to and an opportunity to bargain with the Maintenance Mechanics Union in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a) and (e).
Filed Under: Duty to Bargain
April 22, 2015
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In Hall v. BNSF Railway Company, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found that a homosexual male employee stated a valid gender discrimination claim against his employer for denying health benefits to his husband. The Court refused to dismiss what it determined to be a valid gender discrimination claim where the male employee and his male partner were legally married and BNSF provided coverage for the male spouses of female employees.
Filed Under: Gender/Pregnancy Discrimination, Race Discrimination
April 22, 2015
By Reba Weiss and Brennen Johnson
In Banks v. Yoke's Foods, a U.S. District Court in Washington State denied a grocery company’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a former deli manager. In her lawsuit, the former employee alleged that the company wrongfully demoted (and eventually fired) her because of her anxiety disorder, in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The company requested that the Court dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that the former employee failed to allege that her disability was a substantial factor in her termination. The Court concluded that the former employee had alleged sufficient facts to support an inference that the company had discriminated against her based on her anxiety disorder.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination
April 16, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Jordan Jones
In Port of Anacortes, the Commission reversed an Examiner’s decision that the Employer did not unilaterally change working conditions by ending the use of a light duty assignment without providing notice to the Union and an opportunity to bargain. The Commission held that the Examiner incorrectly analyzed the issue as to whether the Employer unilaterally changed a past practice. The Commission stated that in cases involving newly organized bargaining units who had not finished negotiating their first CBAs, the issue is whether the Employer unilaterally changed the status quo without bargaining.
Filed Under: Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights
April 9, 2015
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In two linked lawsuits filed by the Washington Education Association against the Washington Department of Retirement Systems, the Washington Supreme Court determined that the State may repeal the gain sharing benefits and certain cost of living adjustments attached to pension plans of State employees. A coalition of organizations representing state employees filed the lawsuits in an effort to invalidate the legislature’s actions in 2007, and 2011, that repealed these benefits. However, the Court determined that the State was allowed to repeal the benefits because the laws that initially conferred the benefits did so gratuitously, anticipated a possible repeal, and did not bestow contract rights upon employees.
Filed Under: Constitutional Rights
April 9, 2015
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.
Filed Under: Discrimination and Retaliation, Race Discrimination
April 9, 2015
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In Davis v. State of Washington, the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I, reversed the dismissal of a gender and race discrimination claim filed by a Washington State Patrol Cadet. The former Cadet sued the State of Washington claiming that race and gender played a substantial role in the Washington State Patrol Training Academy’s decision to terminate her from the program. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit before trial after determining that the State had provided a legitimate reason for terminating the Cadet. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal finding that the Cadet had shown that, even if a legitimate reason existed for her termination, the decision still might have been substantially motivated by race or gender discrimination.
Filed Under: Gender/Pregnancy Discrimination, Race Discrimination
March 25, 2015
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.”
Filed Under: Discrimination and Retaliation
March 13, 2015
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.
