Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,713 chars

prescheduled for leave per the collective bargaining agreement, and three other CNAs

called in as “unavailable.”2 Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 230-31.

In her deposition, Tammy Masters, the School’s CR 30(b)(6) witness, testified that

the School has “several call-ins every night,” and there is a process for covering those

2
The record does not indicate a specific reason that the employees were
unavailable.

7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State

shifts. CP at 234. First, the School calls on a pool of employees who have volunteered

for overtime. Then the School calls around the campus asking for volunteers. And if this

is insufficient, they utilize the mandatory overtime list. Suarez testified that she was

frequently called in to work mandatory overtime when “someone called in sick or did not

show up to their shift.” CP at 247. On September 29, the day Suarez failed to show up

for work, a total of six staff members worked overtime, and one was required to work

mandatory overtime.

Shortly after Ms. Suarez missed her shift on September 29, the Department gave

her notice that her probationary employment was ending effective October 4, 2019. The

Department ended her probationary employment because she had a history of refusing

mandatory overtime without justification and she elected to not show up when she knew

the facility would be short-staffed without her.

Suarez filed suit against the School, alleging violations of the WLAD, ch. 49.60

RCW, and a tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Following

discovery, both parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. The superior