Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723448.pdf

We view the "evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most

favorable to the party who prevailed at the administrative proceeding below." Kirbv v.

Emp't Sec. Dep't. 185 Wn. App. 706, 713, 342 P.3d 1151 (2014): William Dickson Co. v.

Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. 81 Wn. App. 403, 411, 914 P.2d 750 (1996).

We will not substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ regarding credibility of witnesses

or the weight of conflicting evidence. Beattv v. Fish &Wildlife Comm'n. 185 Wn. App.

426, 449, 341 P.3d 291 (2015); Port of Seattle. 151 Wn.2d at 588. Unchallenged

findings are verities on appeal. Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd.. 142 Wn.2d

68, 100, 11 P.3d 726 (2000).

The comment posted in response to the Seattle Times article about the ethics

violation of Allen states:

Hi my name is Arron [sic] Swanson Iwas the one that brought all this up to
save my job. I have not been doing well here at the city and this is my

20
             
No. 72344-8-1/21

way of proving a point and saving my job that I might not have for much
longer. I am saddened for what I have done to my union brother but it is
already done. Sincerely Arron [sic] Swanson Seattle city light sec.

Substantial evidence supports finding a SCL employee or Allen retaliated against

Swanson by posting the comment. There is no dispute Swanson did not post the

comment. The comment contains information known only to SCL employees.

Specifically, that Swanson reported Allen's improper conduct and that he had struggled

during the apprenticeship program. The unchallenged findings establish SCL

lineworkers and crew chiefs knew Swanson filed a complaint against Allen for soliciting