Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723448.pdf

17
             
No. 72344-8-1/18

evaluations; demotion, reduction in pay; denial of promotion; transfer or
reassignment; suspension or dismissal; or other unwarranted disciplinary
action.

Because the plain language of former SMC 4.20.850(D) did not provide a remedy

for a whistleblower who is subjected to hostile actions by another employee that are

encouraged by a supervisor, senior manager, or official as required by state law, RCW

42.41.020(3)(b), we conclude the former SMC does not meet the intent of state law.7

Our conclusion that the remedy for a whistleblower reporting hostile actions by

employees encouraged by a supervisor or senior manager as provided under former

SMC 4.20.800 through .860 did not meet the intent of state law is reinforced by the

recent amendment of the SMC. In December 2013, the Seattle City Council added a

provision.that expressly protects employees from retaliation by "a supervisor or superior

who behaves in, or encourages coworkers to behave in, a hostile manner toward the

employee." SMC 4.20.805.

The City's reliance on Woodbury v. City of Seattle, 172 Wn. App. 747, 292 P.3d

134 (2013), to argue the former SMC definition of "retaliatory action" meets the intent of

state law is unpersuasive.

In Woodbury. Seattle Fire Department Deputy Chief Woodbury filed a complaint

against the Seattle Fire Department for failure to submit a bill for services. Woodbury.

172 Wn. App. at 749. Chief Woodbury filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint.

Woodbury. 172 Wn. App. at 749. After the City determined the Seattle Fire Department