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
1,752 charshis fellow SPD officers. These allegations satisfy the sufficiency requirement in SMC 4.20.860(B)(3). Sgt. Hockett’s resubmitted whistleblower complaint was also timely because it was filed within 180 days of when he reasonably should have known that an occurrence of retaliation occurred. See SMC 4.20.860(A). The whistleblower complaint stated that Sgt. Hockett “has suffered discrete, separable, and ongoing adverse changes in his employment occurring in the past 180 days.” (Emphasis added.) Likewise, the amended complaint from the King County Superior Court action alleged that Sgt. Hockett “continues to be ostracized by SPD officers,” that he “continues to be mocked as a whistleblower and has been deemed not promotable,” and that “[i]nstances of retaliation occur daily, and are ongoing.” (Emphasis added.) Because the alleged hostile actions were “ongoing,” “continu[ing],” and “occur[ring] daily” on the date Sgt. Hockett filed his complaint, it was necessarily filed within 180 days of an occurrence of retaliation and, therefore, timely under SMC 4.20.860(A). 11 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85066-1-I Critical here, the Director agreed that Sgt. Hockett’s resubmitted whistleblower complaint was both sufficient and timely. The Director’s July 2021 e-mail states that Sgt. Hockett’s resubmitted complaint is “sufficient under SMC 4.20.860, meaning that it ‘asserts facts that, if true, would show: (a) [Sgt. Hockett] is a cooperating employee; (b) [Sgt. Hockett] was subjected to an adverse change or changes that occurred within the prescribed time period; and (c) [Sgt. Hockett’s] protected conduct reasonably appears to have been a contributing factor.’” The