Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 387844_pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,774 chars

Saleh Elgiadi also seeks to strike the renewed employment provision under

RCW 49.62.020, which bans unlawful restraints of trade. I decline to address this

alternative argument, since my dissent rests on the pillar of retaliation.

Waiver

I emphasize that an employee may, for consideration, waive claims for

employment discrimination based on past conduct of the employer. Thus, contrary to the

suggestion of WSU, settlement agreements of employment discrimination claims will

retain their validity with regard to claims already pending. The question posed by this

suit is whether an employee may waive in advance future claims for failure to rehire the

employee.

I disagree with the majority that the no-reapply clause applies only to present

rights, and not future claims. Instead the clause operates only in the opposite direction.

The clause applies only to future rights, and not present rights. One might have expected

12
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38784-4-III
Elgiadi v. Washington State University

the provision to preclude Elgiadi from merely “seeking reemployment” without any

temporal description or “seeking reemployment at this time or in the future.” (Emphasis

added.) But WSU inserted the language: “at any time in the future.” Even if the

agreement read “at this time or in the future,” the no-reapply clause still flouted Elgiadi’s

prerogative to apply for employment in the future. In its appellate argument, WSU

emphasizes that Elgiadi has yet to reapply for employment, thus confirming that the no-

reapply clause impacts the future, not the present. The clause bars Saleh Elgiadi from

employment or seeking employment after the passage of one month, one year, or one

decade.