Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 56466-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

claim and conclude that Paddock is judicially estopped from arguing that he would have been able

to work as a mechanic for the Port after he had surgery in July 2017. We otherwise affirm. We

remand for further proceedings regarding the wrongful discharge in violation of public policy

claim.

FACTS

I. BACKGROUND

Paddock began working for the Port as an equipment maintenance mechanic in 1999. His

job required him to maintain straddle carriers. A “straddle carrier” is a “vehicle used to stack,

unload, and move containers, such as those shipped on railcars.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 365.

Paddock belonged to a union, and his employment with the Port was governed by a

collective bargaining agreement. In his years with the Port, Paddock filed multiple union

grievances. His grievances alleged retaliation for raising safety concerns, unfair investigations and

discipline, harassment, and age discrimination. His grievance outcomes varied. There were

2
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

findings that at least one grievance was valid, the Port entered into settlement agreements regarding

at least two grievances, and at least three other grievances resulted in denials.

In 2012, Robert Edwards, a longshoreman for the Port, was operating a straddle carrier that

flipped over. The incident injured Edwards. He sued the straddle carrier’s manufacturer in federal

court, contending that the product’s braking system was unsafe. In 2016, Edwards’s attorneys

subpoenaed Paddock to testify about the accident and subsequently deposed him.

At the deposition, Paddock testified that the day before the accident, someone had reported