Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,712 chars
Saunders v. Lloyd’s of London, 113 Wn.2d 330, 340, 779 P.2d 249 (1989).

Equitable estoppel focuses on justifiable reliance. Buchanan v. Switzerland Gen. Ins.

Co., 76 Wn.2d 100, 108, 455 P.2d 344 (1969). Also, a court will apply equitable estoppel

only to prevent a manifest injustice. Kramarevcky v. Department of Social & Health

Services, 122 Wn.2d 738, 743-44, 863 P.2d 535 (1993). Injustice results from an

employer relying on terms of an agreement that retaliates against an employee for

bringing a racial discrimination claim. WSU cannot and does not argue it justifiably

relied on the promise contained in paragraph 3 of the settlement agreement with Saleh

Elgiadi.

15
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

Judicial Estoppel

When arguing judicial estoppel, WSU does not independently analyze the

elements of the doctrine. WSU does not enlighten the court on how judicial estoppel

trumps the highest of priority in preventing discrimination and retaliation.

Judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting one position in a judicial

proceeding and later taking an inconsistent position to gain an advantage. Ashmore v.

Estate of Duff, 165 Wn.2d 948, 951, 205 P.3d 111 (2009); Arkison v. Ethan Allen,

Inc., 160 Wn.2d 535, 538, 160 P.3d 13 (2007). The doctrine seeks to preserve respect

for judicial proceedings and to avoid inconsistency, duplicity, and waste of time.

Cunningham v. Reliable Concrete Pumping, Inc., 126 Wn. App. 222, 225, 108 P.3d 147

(2005); Johnson v. Si-Cor, Inc., 107 Wn. App. 902, 906, 28 P.3d 832 (2001). Three

factors inform whether judicial estoppel should apply: