Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,748 chars
reasons. Worden v. Smith, 178 Wn. App. 309, 322-23, 314 P.3d 1125 (2013).

Also relevant here, we construe municipal ordinances according to the rules of

statutory interpretation. City of Seattle v. Swanson, 193 Wn. App. 795, 810, 373

P.3d 342 (2016). “When the meaning of statutory language is plain on its face, we

give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative intent.” Id.

The exhaustion requirement for SMC retaliation claims is set forth in SMC

4.20.860-.870. To pursue an SMC retaliation claim in court, the employee must

9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85066-1-I

first file a sufficient and timely complaint with the Director. SMC 4.20.870(A)-(B).

A complaint is sufficient if it “asserts facts that, if true, would show: [a] the employee

is a cooperating employee; 2 [b] the employee was subjected to an adverse change

or changes that occurred within the prescribed time period; 3 and [c] the employee’s

protected conduct reasonably appears to have been a contributing factor.” SMC

§ 4.20.860(B)(3). A complaint is timely if it is filed “within 180 days of when [the

employee] reasonably should have known that an occurrence alleged to constitute

retaliation occurred.” SMC 4.20.860(A). If the Director determines the complaint

to be sufficient, the Director may either (a) investigate the complaint to determine

if there is reasonable cause to believe that retaliation occurred or (b) “choose not

to investigate a complaint if the matter is being pursued in another forum.” SMC §

4.20.860(C). If the Director chooses the latter option, the employee may “pursue

a private cause of action under [SMC 4.20.870] . . . to enjoin further retaliation, or