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

And according to witnesses, Paddock had “a history of accusing the Port, supervisors, and

coworkers of improper conduct, often supporting his complaints with false allegations.” CP at 377.

5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

The investigator listed additional evidence that contradicted Paddock’s testimony. She

wrote that work orders for the straddle carrier from “the month preceding the accident [did] not

list any work reflecting the kind of brake problems” Paddock and Hughes had described as leading

to the straddle carrier “being tagged out.” CP at 375. She also wrote that the straddle carrier’s

diagnostic system “was reviewed for the two weeks prior to the accident,” and it showed “no

incidents involving such brake problems.” Id.

The investigator found Paddock’s explanation that he had “simply been mistaken in the

deposition about the dates involved [was] not credible.” CP at 379. The investigator concluded

“that critical aspects of [Paddock’s] deposition testimony were knowingly false, not simply

mistaken.” CP at 377. She explained, “Although an individual’s motives are often difficult to

establish with certainty, the evidence indicates Mr. Paddock provided false testimony in order to

cast a bad light on the Port, his supervisors, and coworkers.” CP at 380. And she noted that when

Paddock testified, he had reason to be upset with the Port because he had recently “been found

guilty of” purposefully “bumping into two coworkers.” Id.

Port executives then terminated Paddock based on the investigator’s finding that Paddock

knowingly gave false testimony and that “this false testimony . . . contributed to unnecessary