Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049631-3-II%20Published%20Order.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

1,708 chars

relaxed evidentiary standards. Christensen, 152 Wn.2d at 309. “In addition, disparity of relief

may be so great that a party would be unlikely to have vigorously litigated the crucial issues in the

first forum and so it would be unfair to preclude relitigation of the issues in a second forum.”

Christensen, 152 Wn.2d at 309.

However, in determining procedural deficiencies, courts have concluded that “an

administrative decision may have preclusive effect on a subsequent civil action where the parties

had ample incentive to litigate issues even though the remedies available in the two arenas were

not identical.” Thompson v. Dep’t of Licensing, 138 Wn.2d 783, 796, 982 P.2d 601 (1999).

Thompson noted, “the unfairness of permitting an adjudication in an informal administrative

setting, for example, to bar later criminal prosecutions.” 138 Wn.2d at 796. We also compare to

see if there are differences in the burden of proof in the respective proceedings. Thompson, 138

Wn.2d at 796.

Here, the SOA and Billings had the opportunity to and did fully litigate the issues of his

termination before the arbitrator. The hearing included ten days of testimony. Billings testified

on his own behalf. On his behalf, the SOA submitted briefing to support its arguments.

Additionally, the clear and convincing burden of proof before the arbitrator was higher than the

preponderance of the evidence burden in a civil proceeding. Dep’t of Labor & Indus. v. Rowley,

185 Wn.2d 186, 208, 378 P.3d 139 (2016).

In addition, Billings’s claim that he would be denied a right to a jury trial if collateral

estoppel precludes the claims is without merit because the parties agreed to binding arbitration in