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
1,773 charsto recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both.” SMC 4.20.870(A)-(B). Sgt. Hockett properly satisfied these requirements. To be sufficient under SMC 4.20.860(B), Sgt. Hockett’s whistleblower complaint had to assert facts showing that a supervisor behaved in or encouraged coworkers to behave in a hostile manner toward Sgt. Hockett as a result of his reporting of the excess levels of car exhaust in the West Garage. Sgt. Hockett’s resubmitted whistleblower complaint filed with the Director in June 2021, which attached the amended 2 It is undisputed that Sgt. Hockett was a “cooperating employee” as defined by SMC 4.20.805 because he “[i]n good faith ma[de] a report of alleged improper governmental action.” 3 “Adverse change” includes, but is not limited to, “denial of promotion” and “a supervisor or superior who behaves in, or encourages coworkers to behave in, a hostile manner toward the employee.” SMC 4.20.805. 10 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85066-1-I complaint from his King County Superior Court action, asserted such facts. The whistleblower complaint alleged claims for “whistleblower retaliation and hostile work environment.” (Emphasis added.) In support of these allegations, Sgt. Hockett averred that after he reported his concerns about excessive car exhaust in the West Garage to his superiors (including Assistant Chief Wilske and Lt. Brooks), SPD personnel began mocking him by calling him names such as “problem child” and “whistleblower,” writing his name on a whistleblower pamphlet, and placing a picture in his office calling him “institutionalized.” Sgt. Hockett stated that these retaliatory acts caused him to feel ostracized and less reputable among