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

Related Parts of This Source

1,756 chars

WSU argues that the purposes behind enforcing settlements would be thwarted if

the settling plaintiff could receive a substantial settlement and then sue the defendant

again and cause it to incur further potential liability and attorney fees. Of course, if the

employee received a substantial settlement, the employer likely engaged in

discrimination, if not some form of egregious discrimination. This court should not

shield such an employer from further claims of discrimination.

Although small employers face a dissimilar situation, if WSU disagreed with

Saleh Elgiadi as to his charges of discrimination, WSU had the right to challenge the

allegations in court. The State of Washington maintains a team of assistant attorneys

general for this purpose.

WSU’s contention impliedly labels the employee a troublemaker for having

brought a discrimination claim. WSU impliedly wishes to send its current or former

troublemaker to another employer, who will then face claims of discrimination and

retaliation instead of WSU facing the claims. But I should not assume that the employee

8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38784-4-III
Elgiadi v. Washington State University

is a troublemaker, as opposed to a person seeking to rid Washington workplaces of

discriminatory practices and environments. I also question why a new employer should

bear the brunt of the troublemaker when the first employer’s work conditions initially led

to complaints.

WSU argues that the no-reapply clause seeks to protect Saleh Elgiadi from

returning to a conflicted workgroup. The argument implies that WSU paternalistically

seeks to benefit Elgiadi, not itself, from a difficult work environment. WSU should