Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,734 chars
University failed to provide him, when requested, a complete copy of his personnel file in

violation ofRCW 49.12.250.

RCW 49.12.240 and .250 control. The former statute reads:

53
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 34103-8-111
Martin v. Gonzaga University

Every employer shall, at least annually, upon the request of an
employee, permit that employee to inspect any or all of his or her own
personnel file(s).

The latter statute declares, in relevant part:

(1) Each employer shall make such file(s) available locally within a
reasonable period of time after the employee requests the file(s).

RCW 49.12 does not define "personnel file."

Gonzaga University, in support of affirming the trial court's ruling, argues that it

satisfied David Martin's request by making the file available to him. Nevertheless, the

facts presented by the university do not confirm this contention. Heather Murray, an

employee of the university tersely declared: "There are two separate files which are kept

on employees: the employee relations file and a personnel file." CP at 167. The

declaration does not verify that the university permitted Martin access to any papers or

any file. In April 2012, David Martin wrote a letter to Gonzaga University that confirmed

he received some documents. Nevertheless, the letter also asked if Martin received all of

the papers in his personnel file. The record shows no response from the university.

Heather Murray's declaration raises more questions than it answers. The questions

include: Why does the university keeps two separate files? What types of documents are

placed in the respective files? Do documents in both files impact the employee's