Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source: Official source
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/989681.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,717 chars

24
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
In re Recall Charges Against Benton County Sheriff Gerald D. Hatcher,
No. 98968-1

any adverse treatment that is based on a retaliatory motive and that is
reasonably likely to deter an individual from engaging in protected
activity.

Id. at 294 (emphasis added).

Here, Sheriff Hatcher’s conduct is prima facie evidence of misfeasance and

malfeasance. Through his attempt to control the interviews in this administrative

investigation, he violated the Anti-Discrimination Policy by failing to perform

faithfully the duty imposed on him by law. In Kast, this court found malfeasance

for wrongful conduct when the violation of law, though it did not have a civil fine

or criminal penalty, “‘interfere[d] with the performance of official duty’ by failing

to promote the best interests of the fire district.” 144 Wn.2d at 815-16 (alteration in

original) (quoting former RCW 29.82.010(1) (1984)). Here, by interfering with the

investigatory interviews and by placing restrictions on the interview process that

were likely to affect participation in the interviews, the sheriff failed to promote

the best interests of his police department.

Sergeant Erickson analogizes the Anti-Discrimination Policy charges in this

case to In re Recall of Washam, 171 Wn.2d 503, 257 P.3d 513 (2011). In that case,

the court found five charges regarding an elected official’s violations of county

ordinances to be legally and factually sufficient. Those relevant to the present case

are retaliation against an employee for filing a complaint against the official;

failure to protect an employee from “retaliation, false accusations or future