Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/796925.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,793 chars

under chapter 14.04 SMC and a retaliation claim under former chapter 14.19 SMC (2014). While
RCW 49.60.330 authorizes a right of appeal for claims arising from alleged violations of chapter
14.04 SMC, it does not appear to extend such a right to claims arising from alleged violations of
the former or current chapter 14.19 SMC. Thus, it appears that if the hearing examiner’s decision
had considered solely claims alleging violations of former chapter 14.19 SMC, a petition for a writ
of review would have been the proper procedure for seeking superior court review.
This raises the question of whether, by considering the hearing examiner’s dismissal of
the retaliation claim brought pursuant to former chapter 14.19 SMC—a dismissal that, on its own,
appears not to be appealable as a matter of right—the superior court herein exceeded the scope
of authority it would have had in a direct appeal of the hearing examiner’s order dismissing both
claims arising under chapter 14.04 SMC and those arising under former chapter 14.19 SMC
(2014). In other words, in a direct appeal of the hearing examiner’s order herein authorized by
RCW 49.60.330 and the APA, would the superior court have been able to consider the dismissal
of the chapter 14.19 SMC retaliation claim?
We conclude that the superior court had the authority to consider the dismissal of the
retaliation claim even though the dismissal of such a claim, on its own, would not be appealable.
Once a party has an appealable order, an appeal therefrom brings the entire order before the
reviewing court. Gazin v. Hieber, 8 Wn. App. 104, 114, 504 P.2d 1178 (1972). Indeed, our
Supreme Court adheres to this principle every time it undertakes direct review of a death penalty
case and declines to restrict its review to issues pertaining