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

1,734 chars

italicized provision—referred to hereafter as the “no-rehire provision”—violates the

public policy behind the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter

49.60 RCW, violates WLAD’s antiretaliation statute (RCW 49.60.210), and is an

unlawful restraint of trade (RCW 49.62.020). The State denied that the provision violated

those laws and affirmatively asserted defenses—including the defenses of waiver, accord

and satisfaction, equitable estoppel, and judicial estoppel.

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

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

Prior to seeking class certification, Mr. Elgiadi filed a motion for partial summary

judgment requesting the trial court declare the no-rehire provision void and

unenforceable. The State filed a cross motion for summary judgment, requesting

dismissal of Mr. Elgiadi’s claims. The trial court denied the former and granted the latter.

Mr. Elgiadi timely appealed the trial court’s rulings.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

A. Standard of review

We review a trial court’s summary judgment ruling de novo, taking all facts and

inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. NOVA Contracting, Inc. v.

City of Olympia, 191 Wn.2d 854, 864, 426 P.3d 685 (2018).

B. Strong public policy encourages settlements

Settlement agreements are governed by the legal principles of contract law.

Stottlemyre v. Reed, 35 Wn. App. 169, 171, 665 P.2d 1383 (1983). Mr. Elgiadi does not

dispute that he voluntarily entered into the settlement agreement. Instead, he seeks to

have the no-rehire provision declared void and unenforceable, to have it struck from the

agreement, and to retain the $295,000 paid to him by the State.