Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,669 chars

together, the provisions of SMC 4.20.870 allow a plaintiff to recover an unlimited

amount of actual damages, which may include up to $20,000 in damages for

emotional distress. Id. This interpretation of SMC 4.20.870 is supported by

Washington precedent interpreting WLAD’s damages provision under RCW

49.60.030(2), which defines “actual damages” as synonymous with compensatory

damages and exclusive of only “nominal, exemplary or punitive” damages. Martini

v. Boeing Co., 137 Wn.2d 357, 367-68, 971 P.2d 45 (1999) (citing BLACK’S LAW

DICTIONARY 35 (6th ed. 1990)).

Notwithstanding the plain language of SMC 4.20.870(B), SPD urges us to

“follow Woodbury’s holding that damages not referenced in the SMC, like ‘emotional

harm’ damages, are unavailable to [Sgt.] Hockett.” (Citing Woodbury v. City of

Seattle, 172 Wn. App. 747, 292 P.3d 134 (2013)). In Woodbury, we held that

emotional distress damages were not an available remedy under the former

versions of RCW 42.41.040 and SMC 4.20.860, which enumerated several forms

of relief for a successful whistleblower retaliation claim (such as reinstatement,

injunctive relief, costs, and attorney fees), but did not include any type of damages

except for back pay. Id. at 754. The critical flaw in SPD’s argument is that following

Woodbury, the City amended the SMC to add a new ordinance, SMC 4.20.870(B),

that includes the aforementioned provisions allowing for recovery of an unlimited

amount of actual damages, including up to $20,000 in damages for emotional

distress. See Ord. 124362, § 10, (2013). 7

7 While SPD supports its interpretation of SMC 4.20.870(B) by citing to Washington State Human