Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 56466-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

explanation, the Social Security Administration determined that Paddock became disabled on

February 13, 2017, concluding that his disability restricted him to performing sedentary work as

of that date.

7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

IV. PADDOCK’S LAWSUIT

Paddock sued the Port for wrongful termination. He brought claims for wrongful discharge

in violation of public policy and retaliation.1 He alleged that because of the termination, he had

incurred damages for “past and future income loss” and “past and future loss of benefits,” among

other damages. CP at 2.

The Port moved for summary judgment to dismiss all of Paddock’s claims. It also argued

that if any claims were to survive summary judgment, Paddock was judicially estopped from

claiming lost wages after February 13, 2017, because the Social Security Administration had

determined that he stopped being able to work on that date.

Paddock’s response to the Port’s motion included his own declaration, a declaration from

Hughes, and a declaration from an attorney who had deposed him for the longshoreman’s

litigation. Paddock said he “had no agenda for the deposition and was there merely to answer

questions about what [he] remembered.” CP at 769. Hughes said he believed Paddock had testified

based on his memory.

The attorney who had deposed Paddock explained in his declaration that throughout the

deposition, Paddock “was unsure of exact dates, as the events he was testifying about occurred

four years prior.” CP at 747. The attorney stated, “My impression at the time, and now, was that

Mr. Paddock was testifying to the best of his ability and his recollection of events that occurred