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

1,789 chars

Roe, 171 Wn.2d at 756 (quoting Gardner, 128 Wn.2d at 941).

In Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 178 Wn. App. 850, 869-70, 316 P.2d 520 (2013), the court

held that a police officer was unable to establish the third element, causation, when a prior

summary judgment ruling determined the officer was terminated for insubordination, or just cause.

Here, the arbitrator determined this issue and ruled that Billings was terminated for just cause.

Because Billings must prove that his protected union activity was a substantial factor in

Steilacoom’s decision to discharge him to succeed on his wrongful discharge claim, the issues are

identical. Christensen, 152 Wn.2d at 308, n.5. Accordingly, we conclude that the issues are

identical.

Further, for the same reasons he cannot establish the third element, Billings is also unable

to prove the fourth element. Again, the arbitrator found that Billings was terminated for just cause;

there existed an overriding justification for his dismissal even if he could prove the other elements.

Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment because Billings’s

claim fails as a matter of law.

3. First Amendment Retaliation Claim—42 U.S.C. § 1983

21
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
49631-3-II

Billings argues that the issues in his First Amendment claim are not identical to the issues

determined by the arbitrator. He argues that arbitration rulings cannot be applied under the

doctrine of collateral estoppel to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Billings further argues that he properly

supported his First Amendment claim with an articulation of matters of public concern.

In Washington, it remains unresolved as to whether an arbitration decision can preclude a