Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source: Official source
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/989681.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,744 chars

negative comments to the lieutenant about his religious beliefs and excluding him

from command staff meetings because he was unwilling to support the sheriff and

was considered disloyal. It was well known to each member of his command staff

that the sheriff “will not tolerate ‘disloyalty.’” Id. at 197. It was reasonable to

conclude that the sheriff’s behavior was designed to intimidate and chill the

lieutenant’s protected union activity and behavior.

Furthermore, the investigation showed that Sheriff Hatcher’s retaliatory

behavior included acts toward Commander Law and Commander Caughey. Ms.

Blatt found that after the sheriff learned that these two commanders were

witnesses, he began using sticky notes in meetings, allegedly to document negative

performance, and he warned the commanders that he would find out what they said

in the interview with her and would “take great exception to disloyalty.” Id. at 197-

98. He informed them that they could not participate in the interviews on paid time

unless he could have a representative sit in on their interviews and informed them

that he too could “whistleblow.” Id. at 198. Shortly thereafter, a false allegation

from 2017 surfaced in which he alleged that the commanders used county

ammunition improperly during a hunting trip. Ms. Blatt “determined that the

30
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
In re Recall Charges Against Benton County Sheriff Gerald D. Hatcher,
No. 98968-1

Sheriff’s motive for raising this allegation now (and not in 2017) can be for no

other purpose than to retaliate against the witnesses for participating in an

investigation against him.” Id. at 396 (emphasis added). She also found that “the