Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

This case concerned the classification of workers as employees or independent contractors for purposes of the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA). A class of 320 former and current FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (FedEx) delivery drivers (hereinafter Anfinson) filed suit seeking overtime wages under the MWA and reimbursement for uniform expenses under the industrial welfare act (IWA). The dispute with respect to both claims was whether the drivers were employees or independent contractors. The parties disagreed on the correct test to distinguish these categories under the MWA; FedEx argued that the common law right-to-control standard governs while Anfinson contended that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) economic-dependence test controls. The trial court gave the jury a hybrid instruction, focusing the inquiry on FedEx's right to control in light of the economic-dependence factors. The jury determined that the drivers were independent contractors. Anfinson appealed, contending, among other things, that the jury instructions misinformed the jury about the standards for determining worker status and about the requirement that class status and evidence be "common to the class members." The Court of Appeals held that the jury instruction defining the standard for determining worker status was erroneous and prejudicial and reversed. The Court of Appeals further held that the jury instruction on the burden of proof was erroneous because it misled the jury and was prejudicial. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in both respects.

Respondent Bonnie Anthis won a civil suit against Petitioner Walter Copland for the wrongful death of her husband, Harvey Anthis. Respondent sought to collect Petitioner's only known asset, his retirement pension, to satisfy the judgment. Petitioner, a retired police officer, argued that his Law Enforcement Officers' and Firefighters' Retirement System (LEOFF) pension money could not be garnished even after it has been deposited into his personal bank account. The trial court disagreed and ruled that the money in the account could be garnished. Petitioner appealed, and the Court of Appeals certified the question to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court: Washington has one statute that exempts a beneficiary's money "whether [it] be in the actual possession of such person or be deposited or loaned." Other exemption statutes exempt only "[t]he right . . . to a . . .retirement allowance." The survey of case law and the plain language in the LEOFF exemption statutes indicate that the latter statutes exempt funds before they are given into the hands of the beneficiary, but not after receipt.

A public school teacher or other certificated employee discharged by a school district may obtain review by a hearing officer and appeal an adverse decision of the hearing officer to superior court. But the legislature did not give school districts the right to appeal an adverse hearing officer decision. When a hearing officer decided in favor of Petitioner David Vinson and against Respondent Federal Way School District, the school district sought review of the decision by statutory writ of certiorari. The superior court denied the writ, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding sufficient cause to terminate Vinson. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the statutory writ was not available to the school district. In contrast, the constitutional writ was always available to a party seeking relief from arbitrary, capricious, or illegal acts. However, the Court found that the hearing officer acted within the limits of his statutory authority, and his final decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the attorney fees awarded by the superior court.

In 1994, Respondent Sylvia Smith began to experience pain in her wrists and swelling in her arms. She was prescribed splints to wear while working for Petitioner Crown, Cork & Seal as a "bagger." In 1997, Respondent sustained an injury at work when a forklift ran over and fractured her leg. In 2005, the Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) determined that because of the forklift accident Respondent was permanently and totally disabled. L&I ordered Crown to place Respondent on the pension rolls. L&I also issued an order that denied Crown "second injury fund" coverage. On Crown's appeal, the superior court reversed the L&I orders. The court concluded that Respondent's wrist injuries preexisted the forklift injury and as such did not constitute a "previous bodily disability." L&I appealed to the Court of Appeals, who reversed the superior court's ruling. The question before the Supreme Court was what constituted a "previous bodily disability" for second injury fund coverage. The Court responded by holding that a "previous bodily injury" under state law is one that "effectively impacts an employee's performance in the workplace or materially diminishes the employee's functional ability to perform the routine activities associated with daily living." The Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's holding in favor of Respondent.

Petitioner and Washington resident Delbert Williams was employed by an Idaho employment agency. The agency regularly sent him to work for Pro-Set Erectors, an Idaho construction subcontractor. In 2007, Pro-Set was hired by Respondent Leone & Keeble (L&K), a general contractor. L&K is a Washington company. Later that year, Petitioner was injured on the job. He filed a claim with the Idaho State Insurance Fund, who accepted his claim and issued workers' compensation payments. In late 2008, the payments stopped. Petitioner filed suit against L&K in Washington, but the trial court dismissed his petition citing lack of jurisdiction over Petitioner's Idaho workers' compensation claim. Upon review of the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found that the trial court did have jurisdiction over Petitioner's claim: "our courts below...seem to have given deference to opinions of the Idaho courts" instead of applying Washington law. L&K argued that because Petitioner received benefits from Idaho, he was barred from bringing the same claim in Washington. Petitioner's claim was allowed under the Washington Industrial Insurance Act, which fell under the jurisdiction of Washington courts. The Court reversed the decision of the lower courts and remanded Petitioner's case for further proceedings.