Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049631-3-II%20Published%20Order.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

1,742 chars

The parties proceeded to arbitration. After ten days of presenting evidence and arguing the

case, the arbitrator issued her final decision. It included findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The arbitrator concluded that just cause did not support Billings’s demotion, but just cause

supported Billings’s termination based on unsatisfactory performance, insubordination, departures

from the truth, failure to perform, unbecoming conduct, unsatisfactory performance, and leaving

his duty post.

The CBA provided that the arbitrator’s decisions would be “final and binding on both

parties.” CP at 153.

3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
49631-3-II

III. SUPERIOR COURT PROCEEDINGS

On November 25, 2015, Billings filed a complaint against Steilacoom, and Schaub and

Loveless as employees of Steilacoom, alleging (1) discrimination and retaliation because of

Billings’s disability, lawful union activities, and/or medical leave; (2) negligence and/or

intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) violation of title 41 and/or 49 RCW; (4) negligent

retention and supervision of those who retaliated against Billings; and (5) wrongful termination in

violation of established public policy. Billings alleged damages including loss of earnings,

compensation, and benefits, mental and emotional trauma, pain and suffering, loss of reputation,

and other damages. Billings also requested costs and attorney fees.

Steilacoom, Loveless, and Schaub denied Billings’s allegations. They also asserted

affirmative defenses including improper service of process, res judicata, collateral estoppel,

exhaustion of administrative remedies, intentional conduct, comparative fault, discretionary