Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723448.pdf

The court reversed the decision and order of the ALJ. On reconsideration,

Swanson argued that because the former SMC did not meet the intent of state law to

protect whistleblowers from hostile actions encouraged by a supervisor or senior

manager, the ALJ did not err in relying on the state law definition of "retaliatory action"

under RCW 42.41.020(3)(b). The court denied the motion for reconsideration.

ANALYSIS

Swanson appeals the superior court decision reversing the ALJ. Swanson

contends the ALJ did not err in relying on the state law definition of "retaliatory action"

13
             
No. 72344-8-1/14

under RCW 42.41.020(3)(b). The City claims that because the former SMC complies

with the intent of state law, the state law definition of "retaliatory action" does not apply.

The Washington Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA), chapter 34.05 RCW,

governs our review. In reviewing administrative action, we sit "in the same position as

the superior court" and apply the standards of the WAPA directly to the agency

decision. Tapper v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 122 Wn.2d 397, 402, 858 P.2d 494 (1993). We

will reverse the agency order if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation or

application of the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(a). The party challenging an agency decision

must establish error and demonstrate the agency action is invalid. RCW

34.05.570(1)(a).

The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewed de novo. City of

Spokane v. Rothwell, 166 Wn.2d 872, 876, 215 P.3d 162 (2009); Ellensburq Cement

Prods.. Inc.. v.Kittitas County. 179 Wn.2d 737, 743, 317 P.3d 1037 (2014). We also

construe a municipal ordinance according to the rules of statutory interpretation.