Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850661.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Full Text
1,747 charsWest Garage. Sgt. Hockett also shared that he felt threatened when an unknown 5 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85066-1-I SPD employee wrote “HOCKETT” on a whistleblower protection flier and placed it in a prominent position in the office. Upon receiving Sgt. Hockett’s e-mail, Lt. Brooks called him into a disciplinary meeting and ordered him to stop monitoring CO levels in the West Garage. Lt. Brooks also suggested that Sgt. Hockett transfer to a different precinct, which Sgt. Hockett opposed because it would have hindered his career aspirations, decreased his pay, and increased his commute. Sgt. Hockett understood Lt. Brooks’ insistence that he leave the West Precinct as punishment for reporting his health concerns. Sometime after this meeting with Lt. Brooks, an unknown SPD employee pinned a picture in Sgt. Hockett’s cubicle of Morgan Freeman’s incarcerated character “Red” from the film The Shawshank Redemption saying, “These walls are funny, first you hate them, then you get used to them. Enough time passes, you get so you depend on them. That’s institutionalized.” Sgt. Hockett interpreted this picture to mean that other officers viewed him as being “trapped like a prisoner” with no future career prospects at SPD because of his whistleblower conduct. In September 2019, Sgt. Hockett e-mailed his supervisor notifying her that he had begun taking anti-depressants and was “suffering from other health conditions as a result of [CO] exposure in the [West Garage].” When the West Precinct Captain learned of this e-mail, Sgt. Hockett was placed on administrative leave for six months. B In June 2020, Sgt. Hockett sued SPD in King County Superior Court