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

1,758 chars

immunity, statute of limitations, failure to state a claim, good faith immunity, mitigation of

damages, setoff, privilege, and failure to comply with chapter 4.96 RCW. They requested that the

complaint be dismissed with prejudice. They also requested costs and attorney fees.

A. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Steilacoom, Loveless, and Schaub filed a motion for summary judgment dismissal of all of

Billings’s claims pursuant to CR 56. They argued there existed no genuine issue of material fact

and summary judgment was appropriate. Steilacoom, Loveless, and Schaub argued that any claims

prior to Billings’s September 2012 termination were barred by the statute of limitations.1 In

addition, they argued that collateral estoppel barred Billings from relitigating whether they had a

legitimate basis to terminate his employment, because the essential elements of Billings’s claims

1
Billings conceded this point.

4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
49631-3-II

had been fully litigated and determined in the arbitrator’s ruling. They further argued that

collateral estoppel also precluded Billings from proceeding on his public policy wrongful

termination claims and his chapter 49.60 RCW discrimination claims under the test set out in

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). They

argued that collateral estoppel precluded Billings from proceeding on retaliation claims.

Steilacoom, Loveless, and Schaub argued that if the claims were not barred by collateral

estoppel, the negligence claims should be dismissed because employers do not have a duty to avoid

emotional distress and the employees acted within the scope of their employment. Finally,