Total Articles: 10
Washington Court Affirms $2.1 Million Judgment in Meal and Rest Period Class Action
Finding no error in the trial court’s ruling that plaintiff-armored car employees “were always engaged in active work duties when on the armored vehicles,” the Washington Court of Appeals has affirmed a $2.1 million judgment against an employer for failing to comply with Washington’s meal and rest period law. Pellino v. Brink’s Inc., 164 Wn. App. 668, 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 2541 (Wash. Ct. App., Div. I, Nov. 7, 2011), recons. denied (Dec. 22, 2011). In addition, the Court agreed that the company engaged in a class-wide pattern or practice of failing to provide sufficient meal and rest period time also in violation of Washington state law.
Washington Court Finds State Public Policy Violated by CBA Arbitration Award Reinstating Worker who Hung Noose at Work
A labor arbitrator’s award reinstating an employee who was terminated for hanging a noose in his workplace violated Washington’s public policy against discrimination where the arbitrator’s lesser discipline (only a 20-day suspension) prevented the employer from effectively discharging its state law duty of eradicating racial discrimination from the workplace. Thus, a Washington Court of Appeals panel has vacated the award. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 286 v. Port of Seattle, No. 65037-8 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2011). However, because the trial court exceeded its authority in making its own decision about the appropriate employee discipline, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings.
Washington Claims for Wrongful Discharge against Public Policy Limited by Effective Statutory Remedies
The Washington Supreme Court has reaffirmed that employee tort claims alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy may be brought only in limited circumstances, where the public policy at issue is not adequately promoted through alternative mechanisms, such as statutory remedies or criminal sanctions.
Seattle Paid Sick Time and Paid Safe Time Ordinance Adopted
On September 23, 2011, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn signed into law the Seattle Paid Sick Time and Paid Safe Time Ordinance. Effective on September 1, 2012, nearly all private sector employers must provide to employees who work in Seattle specified amounts of accrued, job-protected paid time off for personal illness, family care and other purposes. Seattle joins San Francisco, Washington D.C., Connecticut, and potentially Denver, in mandating that employers provide a paid time off benefit.
Seattle Ordinance Requires Businesses to Provide Paid Sick and Safe Days to Workers
The Seattle City Council has approved a requirement that businesses in Seattle provide paid leave to employees when they or their family members fall ill or are a victim of domestic violence. Additionally, the new ordinance (Council Bill No. 117216) requires employers to post a notice informing employees of their leave rights. Approved on September 12, 2011, the new leave ordinance goes into effect on September 1, 2012.
Washington Court Rules No Overtime Pay for Missed Rest Breaks during 40-Hour Week
A Washington state appeals court has ruled that employees who miss state-mandated rest breaks during their regular 40-hour workweek assignments are not entitled to overtime compensation for the missed rest breaks. The Court held that the plaintiff-nurses were entitled only to straight-time compensation under the Washington Minimum Wage Act because they did not work in excess of 40 hours during the week they missed a rest break. The break periods were included in, and a part of, their 40-hour week. Washington State Nurses’ Assn. v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., No. 29366-1-III (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2011).
City of Seattle Considers Paid Sick and Safe Time Leave Ordinance
A private employer in Seattle would be required to provide its employees with “paid sick and safe time” to care for “their own or their family members’ health needs or their own or their family members’ safety or other needs resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking…” under an ordinance proposed by Seattle City Councilman Nick Licata.
Washington’s Medical Marijuana Law Does Not Support a Wrongful Termination Claim
Rejecting an employee’s claims for wrongful termination, the Washington Supreme Court has held that the state Medical Use of Marijuana Act (“MUMA”) does not provide a civil cause of action for wrongful termination based on the employee’s authorized medical marijuana use. Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt. (Colorado) LLC, No. 83768-6 (Wash. June 9, 2011). The Court further held that MUMA does not create a clear public policy supporting a tort claim for public policy wrongful discharge.
Washington Employers Claim Victory In Medical Marijuana Battle
On June 9, 2011, the Washington Supreme Court handed employers a comprehensive victory in the long-running medical marijuana battle, deciding that employers need not accommodate an employee's use of medical marijuana, and that employees terminated for medical marijuana use – even offsite use – have no basis to sue their employers. Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt.
Washington State Legislature Targets Bullying in the Workplace
Responding to findings that approximately one in five employees “directly experience health-endangering workplace bullying, abuse, and harassment” and that “abusive work environments can have serious effects on targeted employees and serious consequences for employers,” a new bill has been introduced in both houses of Washington’s state legislature that will provide a legal remedy for employees and legal incentives for employers to address workplace bullying.
