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

Full Text

1,480 chars

12
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
49631-3-II

the CBA. Further, we note that Billings failed to file a jury demand in his civil case before the

deadline.

Finally, because the crucial issue in determining the injustice element is whether Billings

had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the arbitration, we consider whether the other

arguments Billings raised involve procedural defects. Christensen, 152 Wn.2d at 309. Billings

alleged the SOA’s lack of funding, his lack of knowledge that the arbitration could have a

preclusive effect, and his inability to raise issues of discriminatory hiring and waste are all

distinguishable from other examples of procedural defects discussed above.

None of the arguments Billings raised constitutes a procedural defect. Billings’s arguments

do not support his claim that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues. The

SOA hired an attorney to represent his interests in the arbitration, despite Billings’s claim that it

was poorly funded. Billings also testified at the hearing. In addition, whether the SOA failed to

advise Billings about collateral estoppel does not preclude the application of collateral estoppel.3

Finally, Billings would have been unable to testify about issues of discriminatory hiring and waste

because it was irrelevant to the issues at arbitration: whether just cause existed for his demotion

and termination.