Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 387844_pub.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 387844_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/387844_pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,761 chars

claim for age discrimination was dismissed on summary judgment.1

In early 2020, Mr. Elgiadi and the State entered into a settlement agreement. The

agreement required Mr. Elgiadi to release the State from all claims arising out of his

former employment. In exchange, the State agreed to pay Mr. Elgiadi $295,000. The

1
One of the parties highlighted portions of the letter decision they wanted to
emphasize. Highlighting text results in our copy of that text appearing redacted. We
encourage parties to underline text they wish to stress so we can read it. Ultimately, and
as explained below, the summary dismissal of Mr. Elgiadi’s discrimination claim is
irrelevant.

2
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38784-4-III
Elgiadi v. Wash. State Univ.

agreement contained the following provision, which provides only one limitation on Mr.

Elgiadi’s future employment:

3. As a condition of this settlement, State of Washington
requires that Plaintiff agree he will neither seek nor accept employment
with WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY-SPOKANE, at any time in the
future. . . . The parties agree this required limitation applies only to
employment with WSU-Spokane and that it does not prevent Plaintiff for
[sic] working for an independent contractor providing services, consulting,
acting as a vendor or other contractors providing materials, supplies or
services to WSU-Spokane.

Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 30 (emphasis added).

Seven months later, Mr. Elgiadi brought suit against the State. His suit sought

class action status for all former State employees whose discrimination claim settlements

included a no-rehire provision.

Pertinent to the issues on appeal, Mr. Elgiadi’s complaint asserts that the above-