Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,772 chars

Swanson, its reliance on Swanson is misplaced. The Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ) in Swanson “did not consider” whether an employee’s placement of a sticker

on another employee’s locker constituted retaliation under the SMC because the

sticker was “first” placed on the employee’s locker more than 30 days before the

complaint was filed. 6 193 Wn. App. at 808. On appeal, we affirmed the ALJ’s

separate determination that the employer had nevertheless committed retaliation

in violation of the state whistleblower statute, ch. 42.41 RCW, without addressing

whether the SMC complaint was timely under SMC 4.20.860(A) because neither

party raised that issue on appeal. See Swanson, 193 Wn. App. at 815-17. Thus,

the Swanson court’s passing reference to the timeliness requirements in SMC

4.20.860(A) is dicta. Even so, Swanson is distinguishable because here the

6 Under former SMC 4.20.860(A) (1994), an employee had to file a whistleblower complaint “within

30 days of the occurrence alleged to constitute retaliation.” Swanson, 193 Wn. App. at 804.

14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85066-1-I

Director—the person responsible for determining whether a complaint is timely

filed under SMC 4.20.860(A)(1)—found Sgt. Hockett’s complaint to be sufficient

and permitted him to pursue his SMC retaliation claim against SPD in court. SPD’s

contrary arguments lack merit.

The remainder of this opinion has no precedential value. Therefore, it will

be filed for public record in accordance with the rules governing unpublished

opinions. See RCW 2.06.040.

III

SPD argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying its CR 59(h)

motion to amend the judgment to reduce the $1,000,000 damages award on the