Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,727 chars
DLI has enforcement authority. WAC 296-126-226. The first sentence of that provision

states: "The department shall investigate the complaint of any individual alleging that

these standards have been violated. " 3

For many reasons, this claim does not belong in court. DLI, not the courts, is the

first line defender of the rights provided in chapter 49.12 RCW and chapter 296-126

WAC. For Mr. Martin to present this issue to a court, he first would have to ask DLI to

investigate and exercise its authority. He does not appear to have done so. He thus has

no way of moving from the administrative system to the court system.

Even if he had made the request of DLI and that agency pursued its administrative

remedies, it is doubtful Mr. Martin's position could have prevailed. It does not appear

that the information Mr. Martin is seeking (employee evaluations) is information that an

employer has any obligation to maintain, let alone share with an employee, under this

regulation. WAC 296-126-050(1). Gonzaga likewise is under no obligation to have

2
The contents of the file include the employee's name, address and occupation,
dates of employment, the wage rate, the number of hours worked, and the amount paid
each pay period. WAC 296-126-050(1). Presumably this working definition would
govern the issue of what constitutes a "personnel file" under the statute.
3 The remainder of the provision explains when criminal sanctions apply.

2
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 34103-8-111
Martin v. Gonzaga University

retained this information this long. Id. It also appears that the remedy is simply to allow

Mr. Martin to look at the files. WAC 296-126-050(2).