Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 315223.cor.pdf

grieve the nonrenewal itself as a retaliatory action. It points to allegedly retaliatory acts

taken by Ms. Thomas before May 2012, such as harassing e-mails, requiring Ms.

Easterling to carry a walkie-talkie, and requiring permission slips.

15
             

No. 31522-3-111
Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81 v. Spokane Educ. Ass 'n

Here, too, Ms. Easterling's complaints of retaliation, even if grievable when they

occurred, are not grievable as a basis for challenging the district's evaluation and

nonrenewal decision. And avoidance of the nonrenewal decision, through an arbitrator-

ordered additional year of provisional employment, is the remedy she seeks. Neither her

grievances nor her argument on appeal suggest how the alleged acts of retaliation gave

rise to any distinct harm, unrelated to the evaluation and nonrenewal, that can be

remedied at this late date.

The trial court properly viewed her grievance as necessarily challenging the

district's evaluation and nonrenewal decision and therefore as excluded from an

arbitration remedy by article VII, section 3.

3. Procedural Inconsistencies

Ms. Easterling next contends that there were procedural discrepancies that

occurred during the course of this matter which were grievable under the CBA.

Specifically, within several days after she received her notice of nonrenewal, an informal

meeting was held pursuant to step one, with Mike Boyer, Ms. Easterling, Jenny Rose (the

president of the union), Mr. Perdue, and Tenille Jeffries Simmons (chief human resources

officer for the district) in attendance. Following the meeting, the union amended the

grievance on behalf of Ms. Easterling to complain that Ms. Thomas had not been present