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

1,757 chars

reasonable jury could find that an adverse employment action [the firing of Brownfield]

resulted from anything other than Plaintiffs unfitness for duty and his insubordination."

CP at 442. (Emphasis added). Jeff Brownfield cannot avoid these facts because of the

doctrine of collateral estoppel.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel encompasses issue preclusion. Shoemaker v.

City o/Bremerton; 109 Wn.2d 504, 507, 745 P.2d 858 (1987). Collateral estoppel bars

relitigation of any issue that was actually litigated in a prior lawsuit. Hanson v. City 0/

Snohomish, 121 Wn.2d 552, 561, 852 P.2d 295 (1993); Pederson v. Potter, 103 Wn. App.

62,69, 11 P.3d 833 (2000); Philip A. Trautman, Claim and Issue Preclusion in Civil

Litigation in Washington, 60 WASH. L. REv. 805, 812-13 (1985). One of the purposes of

20
             

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

issue preclusion is to encourage respect for judicial decisions by ensuring finality. The

question is always whether the party to be estopped had a full and fair opportunity to

litigate the issue. Nielson v. Spanaway Gen. Med. Clinic, Inc., 135 Wn.2d 255,262,956

P.2d 312 (1998). That question turns on four primary considerations: (1) whether the

identical issue was decided in a prior action; (2) whether the first action resulted in a final

judgment on the merits; (3) whether the party against whom preclusion is asserted was a

party to that action; and (4) whether application of the doctrine will work an injustice.

Hanson, 121 Wn.2d at 562.

Judge Whaley's ruling was in the form of a summary judgment order. For

collateral estoppel to apply, it is not necessary that the issue was previously determined