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

1,724 chars

If the Billings met the initial burden, he would be required to prove that his filing of

grievances against his superiors and his union activities was a “substantial factor” or a “motivating

factor” in his dismissal. Shoemaker, 109 Wn.2d at 512. Then the burden would shift to the

23
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
49631-3-II

government to establish that it had “legitimate administrative interests [that] outweigh[ed] the

employee’s First Amendment rights; or . . . [that it] would have taken the adverse employment

action even absent the protected speech.” Karl, 678 F.3d at 1068.

Because we sit in the same position as the trial court, we review the evidence presented at

summary judgment. Billings seemed to argue that the complaints he made against Schaub

constituted protected speech. He made complaints about hiring decisions and employment.

Billings claimed that Schaub yelled profanities at him in front of peers, and subordinates. He filed

a complaint alleging improper governmental action by Schaub. After his demotion, Billings filed

a formal complaint against Schaub alleging retaliation. Finally, he filed three other grievances

alleging Schaub was violating policies.

Billings did not support his argument that his actions constituted protected speech with

evidence. Complaints over internal affairs are not necessarily of public concern or protected

speech. Connick, 461 U.S. at 149. Billings failed to present evidence to meet the initial burden

for a prima facie case under § 1983. Billings has not specified what protected speech he alleges

from the basis of his claim. Because Billings did not produce evidence to raise a genuine issue of