Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850661.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Full Text
1,756 charsSEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT and CITY OF SEATTLE, Appellants. FELDMAN, J. — A jury found the Seattle Police Department and the City of Seattle (collectively, SPD) liable for negligently exposing their employee, Sergeant David Hockett, to car exhaust containing carbon monoxide (CO) in the workplace, failing to accommodate his disability or impairment under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, ch. 49.60 RCW (WLAD), and retaliating against him for reporting his concerns about car exhaust by creating a hostile work environment in violation of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) whistleblower protection provisions, SMC 4.20.800-.880. SPD appeals the jury verdict and various trial court rulings with respect to the negligence and hostile work environment claims. In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that Sgt. Hockett properly exhausted his hostile work environment claim with the Seattle Ethics & Elections Commission Executive Director (Director) under SMC § 4.20.860-.870 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85066-1-I before pursuing a private cause of action in King County Superior Court. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we address several additional assignments of error presented by SPD and conclude that only one of them merits appellate relief, namely SPD’s challenge to the trial court’s award of attorney fees to Sgt. Hockett for work performed by non-lawyer personnel. We remand for entry of findings and conclusions with respect to attorney fees. In all other respects, we affirm. I A David Hockett is a sergeant at SPD who has worked at the West Precinct since the early 2000s. Officers in the West Precinct park their patrol vehicles in an