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

1,710 chars

claim and thus, we should not consider those claims.

As previously stated, RAP 10.3(a)(6) directs each party to supply, in its brief, “argument

in support of the issues presented for review, together with citations to legal authority and

references to relevant parts of the record.” Failure to provide argument and citation to authority

in support of an assignment of error precludes appellate consideration under RAP 10.3(a)(6).

Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992). “[P]assing

treatment of an issue or lack of reasoned argument is insufficient to merit judicial consideration.”

West v. Thurston County, 168 Wn. App. 162, 187, 275 P.3d 1200 (2012) (quoting Holland v. City

of Tacoma, 90 Wn. App. 533, 538, 954 P.2d 290 (1998)). Although Billings failed to provide

clear, substantive argument for his argument that his public policy discharge claim or his § 1983

claim are not identical to the issues determined by the arbitrator, we address them.

14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
49631-3-II

1. Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), Chapter 49.60 RCW

Billings argues that the issues presented in a WLAD claim are not identical to those

determined by the arbitrator because the action filed in superior court involves application of a

different legal standard. Billings argues that he properly supported his public policy claims of

discrimination and retaliation based on his union activities. He also argues that WLAD protects a

union employee’s rights to pursue both arbitration and his WLAD claims.

Billings alleged a disability discrimination and retaliation claim that Steilacoom terminated