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

In June 2020, Commander Croskrey submitted his resignation. As part of the

resignation process, there was follow-up regarding a whistleblower complaint with

human resources about Sheriff Hatcher’s unethical and unlawful behaviors. Also

during this process, human resources found no issues relating to Commander

Croskrey’s time cards. This culminated in Sheriff Hatcher, on live radio, accusing

Commander Croskrey of having “issues relating to [his] use of time.” Id. at 200.

4
See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963); see also Jonathan
Abel, Brady's Blind Spot: Impeachment Evidence in Police Personnel Files and the Battle
Splitting the Prosecution Team, 67 STAN. L. REV. 743, 746-47 (2015).

35
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

These allegations are extremely concerning and establish an ongoing pattern

of threatening and retaliatory behaviors showing the hostile work environment that

Sheriff Hatcher created. Sheriff Hatcher attempts to explain away his retaliatory

behavior, arguing that conduct that “may” deter one from participating in protected

activity is insufficient. He states that it must actually deter them. To the contrary,

the policy indicates it is a violation if the behavior is “reasonably likely to deter,”

not that it must deter. Id. at 255. The extensive threats, false accusations, and

negative remarks are reasonably likely to deter witnesses and complainants from

engaging in protected activity. Thus, his behavior is a violation of the policy and

amounts to misfeasance and a violation of his oath of office.