Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361659_pub.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361659_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source
Official source

Full Text

1,797 chars
“pre-employment” orientation session without pay. Id. at 827. An employee union

brought a class action suit against the company, arguing that the mandatory unpaid

orientation violated state wage and hour laws. Id. at 827-28. As relevant to this appeal,

the court ruled that the three-year statute of limitations of RCW 4.16.080(3) governing

unjust enrichment applied rather than the two-year catchall statute. Id. at 836-38. In

4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 36165-9-III
Silver v. Rudeen Mgmt. Co.

doing so, the court also rejected the employees’ argument that RCW 4.16.080(2) applied.

Id. at 836-37. The court noted that the right being asserted was protected both by law and

statute. Id. at 838. However, not all tort-related actions were governed by the three-year

statute. Id. at 837.

Rudeen argues that where the common law creates a right of recovery and a statute

supplements that cause of action, the three-year limitation statute applies, but where the

statute creates its own new cause of action unrelated to an existing action, the two-year

catchall is applicable. It finds support for this view in the noted comments from SPEEA

and the synthesis of the case law found in Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding &

Construction Co., 36 Wn. App. 607, 676 P.2d 545 (1984). In Lewis, the court found that

an employment discrimination claim based on the Washington Law Against

Discrimination, ch. 49.60 RCW, enforced a “valuable right or privilege enjoyed by

Lewis.” Id. at 612. Canvassing the case authority, Lewis ruled that where a defendant

“directly invades a legally protected interest,” the three-year limitation statute applied.

Id.

Thus, the ultimate question concerns the nature of the right invaded. Silver argues