Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 309941.cor.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 309941.cor.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/309941.cor.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,741 chars

jeopardy element, and collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the causation element of

the tort. The court dismissed the WLAD action, because no rational trier of fact could

I
i
find that the stated reason of insubordination was pretextual. Finally, the trial court

dismissed the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claims, because Brownfield

failed to establish a causal relationship between Chief Granato's hiring and retention and

the harm that Brownfield suffered.

ANALYSIS

Issue I: Did the trial court err when granting summary judgment dismissing Jeff

Brownfield's statutory whistleblower claim, when the city of Yakima published its own

whistleblower policy? No.

The Washington legislature adopted the Local Government Whistleblower

Protection Act (Act) in 1992, chapter 42.41 RCW. The Act provides protections and

remedies for one defined as a "whistleblower." RCW 42.41.010-.040. We question

No.30994-1-II1
Brownfield v. City ofYakima

whether the complaints forwarded by leffBrownfield qualify him for ''whistleblower''

status. See RCW 42.41.01O(1)'s definition of "improper governmental actions." We

need not address this question or the question whether a whistleblower may sue in

superior court, rather than follow the procedures outlined in RCW 42.41.040. We agree

with the trial court that the city of Yakima is exempt from chapter 42.41 RCW.

RCW 42.41.050 reads:

Any local government that has adopted or adopts a program for reporting
alleged improper governmental actions and adjudicating retaliation
resulting from such reporting shall be exempt from this chapter if the
program meets the intent of this chapter.