Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/318583.pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,761 chars

committed by "any ... person" was actionable; second, the fact that chapter 49.60 RCW

25

No. 31858-3-II1
Sambas ivan v. Kadlec Med. Ctr.

"covers many situations other than employment, such as credit, travel, insurance, real

estate transactions, etc." and that "[n]othing in its title or content limits the WLAD to

labor or employer-employee relations," id. at 950; and third, that a limited construction

"would be contrary to the Legislature's mandate to construe the WLAD liberally." Id. at

949 (citing RCW 49.60.020). It also pointed out that Galbraith's actions had been "labor

related, albeit derivative." Id. at 951.

A year later, the retaliation remedy was held to be unavailable to a plaintiff

attempting to sue a co-worker in Malo v. Alaska Trawl Fisheries, Inc., 92 Wn. App. 927,

930,965 P.2d 1124 (1998), but the court still read the statute more broadly than Kadlec

would have us read it. Reading the statute as a whole and applying the ejusdem generis

rule, the Malo court refused to construe it as providing a remedy against any person

whatsoever, but held that it was directed not only at employers but also

at entities functionally similar to employers who discriminate by engaging
in conduct similar to discharging or expelling a person who has opposed
practices forbidden by RCW 49.60.

92 Wn. App. at 930.

Here, Kadlec's Emergency Department Call Coverage Agreement had provided at

its article V that in performing services under the agreement, Dr. Sambasivan was acting

as an independent contractor, a relationship that was held in Marquis to be subject to the

protections of chapter 49.60 RCW. And under either Galbraith's or Malo's construction