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

Full Text

1,358 chars

a whistleblower complaint, it must challenge that determination through an

administrative appeal. In Romulo, we affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of an

employee’s claims alleging retaliation in violation of the SMC because the Director

had previously dismissed the employee’s whistleblower complaint as insufficient

and the employee “did not plead any claim for relief from or review of the

[Director’s] determination, much less prove that it was erroneous or arbitrary.” Id.

at 40. Here too, if SPD disagreed with the Director’s determination or believed it

to be unclear, it was required to plead a claim for relief from or review of the

Director’s determination. Instead, it waited over a year to assert its exhaustion

argument as the trial was about to begin. That is not an appropriate time or manner

in which to challenge the determination. 5

Next, SPD argues that a complaint is not timely under SMC 4.20.860(A)

unless the employee files it within 180 days of when the “first” act of retaliation

4 Although Romulo is an unpublished opinion, we may properly cite and discuss unpublished
opinions where, as here, doing so is “necessary for a reasoned decision.” GR 14.1(c). We adopt
the reasoning of Romulo as stated in the text above.
5 SPD argues the trial court abused its discretion by not considering a declaration from the Director