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

Related Parts of This Source

1,752 chars

would only preclude such a clause in the context of discrimination claims. Regardless,

WSU cites no decision that stands for the proposition that long-accepted practices trump

statutes or public policy abhorring racial discrimination and retaliation for filing

discrimination claims. If courts deemed their role limited to preserving long-accepted

practices, we might still live under feudal England rules.

WSU mentions that the no-reapply clause in Saleh Elgiadi’s settlement agreement

only precluded employment from the Spokane campus of Washington State University.

Nevertheless, RCW 49.60.210(1) admits no exception to retaliation for a limited

geographic scope.

WSU relies on Lehrer v. Department of Social & Health Services, 101 Wn. App.

509, 5 P.3d 722, review denied, 142 Wn.2d 1014, 16 P.3d 1263 (2000). In Lehrer, this

court upheld a clause in an employment resignation agreement, under which a

psychiatrist agreed not to apply or work for two state hospitals. The State suggests that

the Lehrer ruling precludes an argument that a no-reapply clause violates the public

11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

policy against discrimination. But this court limited its ruling to Lehrer’s contention that

the clause worked an unlawful restraint of trade for a physician.

WSU mentions that Saleh Elgiadi has yet to apply for reemployment. This

comment impliedly invokes the ripeness doctrine. Nevertheless, the State does not

expressly ask the court to dismiss the case on ripeness grounds. Anyway, one may bring

a declaratory judgment action to assess the validity of contract terms before any

purported breach. RCW 7.24.020.