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

. . or otherwise retaliate against an individual assisting with an office of fraud and accountability

investigation2 . . . unless the individual has willfully disregarded the truth in providing information

to the office.” RCW 49.60.210(3). But Paddock does not argue that the Port discharged him for

opposing any practices the Law Against Discrimination forbids, nor does he contend that he

assisted with an office of fraud and accountability investigation. Paddock also fails to identify a

different statutory basis for his retaliation claim or cite authority establishing that retaliation is a

separate tort claim. When asked at oral argument about the legal basis for his retaliation claim,

Paddock mentioned the collective bargaining agreement between his former union and the Port,

but the full agreement is not in our record and Paddock has not articulated a basis for a retaliation

claim identified in or based on the collective bargaining agreement.

2
The Department of Social and Health Services’ office of fraud and accountability detects,
investigates, and prosecutes “any act prohibited or declared to be unlawful in the public assistance
programs” the Department administers. RCW 74.04.012(1).

18
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

Given that Paddock has provided insufficient argument to support his retaliation claim, we

affirm the trial court’s order dismissing it.

B. First Amendment Violation

In his opening brief, Paddock argues that the trial court “failed to take into account” his

First Amendment rights and that the Port violated those rights “by virtue of his deposition

testimony.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 37-38. Instead of providing further explanation, Paddock