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

1,747 chars

merely a pretext. Billings did not present any evidence that the numerous reasons for his dismissal

were unworthy of belief. Billings presented no evidence at summary judgment showing a pretext

for his discharge. Billing only submitted a declaration in which he discussed his perception of

events. Further, he does not argue anything about a pretext in his briefing on appeal.

Accordingly, we conclude that summary judgment on this issue was appropriate because

the issues were identical, precluding the issues under collateral estoppel, and based on the

arbitrator’s findings and conclusions, Billings’s WLAD claim would fail as a matter of law.

iii. Retaliation

Billings seems to argue that Steilacoom, Schaub, and Loveless retaliated against him for

his union activities, apart from his § 1983 claim.4

The arbitrator stated that she would not make a legal conclusion, because:

The Public Employment Relations Commission prohibits discrimination due to
union activities by public employers against their employees. A different legal
standard is used in those cases than the standards used to evaluate just cause cases.
If Billings believes that he was discriminated against because of his union activities,
he should bring that claim in a different forum.

CP at 1450.

4
Billings also focuses on the portion of the arbitrator’s decision were she declined to rule on the
ultimate issue of whether Steilacoom retaliated against him for union activities.

18
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
49631-3-II

Although the arbitrator chose not to issue an ultimate legal conclusion regarding a “union

retaliation” claim, the issues she did make legal conclusions on act as a bar to that claim at