Case
|
Description
|
Supreme Court Argued by Sheridan Jury verdict affirmed |
Brundridge v. Fluor Fed. Services, Inc., 164 Wn.2d 432, 191 P.3d 879 (2008). Eleven wrongfully discharged pipe fitters won jury verdicts against Fluor Federal Services for wrongful discharge by Fluor for either blowing the whistle on unsafe practices at the Hanford Nuclear Site or for supporting those who did. Fluor appealed to the Division III Court of Appeals, and in November 2007, before oral argument was held at the Court of Appeals, the case was certified directly to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the jury's verdict, and made important holdings on a plaintiff's right to enter evidence of other crimes and wrongs committed by the employer against other employees.
Watch Jack in action arguing this case to the Washington State Supreme Court. His side of the argument begins about halfway into the video at 18:20.
|
Case
|
Description
|
Case settled on appeal before argument owing to strength of plaintiff's opening brief |
No. 588567-I. Race discrimination case involving Chinese American working at the Seattle Public Library. Case lost at trial owing to error in jury selection, which improperly excluded a Chinese American jury service in violation of constitutional rights. On appeal, case settled for $200,000.00. See copy of appellate brief filed with the Washington State Court of Appeals.
|
Case
|
Description
|
Court of Appeals
Argued by Sheridan
Case settled after plaintiff won appeal
|
91 Wn.App. 138, 955 P.2d 822 (Div. 1 1998). Race discrimination case lost at trial owing to error in jury instructions and improper closing argument by defense counsel. Case settled after plaintiff’s successful appeal to Washington State Court of Appeals.
To review court's decision link to: FindLaw |
Case
|
Description
|
Court of Appeals Argued by Sheridan Pro bono case |
86 Wn.App. 557, 937 P.2d 1133 (Div. 1 1997), review denied, 133 Wn.2d 1018, 948 P.2d 388 (1997). Challenge to City of Seattle anti-sitting ordinance. A good fight, but the appellate courts were unwilling to enforce fundamental protections for homeless Seattle residents.
To review court's decision link to: FindLaw
For related cases and commentary search google: City Seattle McConahy sitting
|
Case
|
Description
|
Supreme Court Argued by Sheridan Jury verdict affirmed |
137 Wash. 2d 358; 971 P.2d 45 (1999). Groundbreaking disability discrimination case holding that unlike federal law, Washington law permits a victim of discrimination to leave a discriminatory workplace and recover damages for all lost wages (some federal decisions require that victim be constructively terminated or lose all rights to lost wages). To review court's decision link to: FindLaw |
Case
|
Description
|
Court of Appeals Argued by Sheridan Jury verdict affirmed |
88 Wash. App. 442, 945 P.2d 248 (Div. I, 1997). Disability discrimination case. Court affirmed jury verdict for plaintiff. |
Case
|
Description
|
Supreme Court Argued by Sheridan Jury verdict affirmed |
159 Wn.2d 527, 151 P.3d 976 (2007). Court affirmed the Court of Appeals holding remanding case to determine if plaintiff's counsel deserved multiplier of attorney fee award because he took a high risk case. The trial court later awarded a fee multiplier to Sheridan as a reward for taking such a high risk case.
To review court's decision link to: FindLaw |
Case
|
Description
|
Court of Appeals Argued by Sheridan Jury verdict affirmed |
124 Wn.App. 716, 103 P.3d 827 (2004). The court affirmed the jury verdict in all respects and also held the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs a multiplier on the attorney fee award, since the case was high risk. To review court's decision link to: FindLaw |
Case
|
Description
|
Court of Appeals Argued by Sheridan Jury verdict affirmed |
2008 Wash. App. LEXIS 1391 (1998). The Court affirmed Phi Trinh’s verdict of $947,290.00 ($772,000 as damages for emotional harm). The jury awarded Mattie Bailey $503,195.00 ($462,000 as damages for emotional harm), but the Court sent her case back to the trial court to reevaluate the damages having found that one of her claims was outside the statute of limitations. See home page for subsequent +$800,000 settlement of Ms. Bailey's case. The Court of Appeals opinion depicts ten years of success and job satisfaction by Mr. Trinh and Ms. Bailey under Superintendents Hardy and Bradley followed by ten years of discrimination and harassment under Superintendents Zarker and Carrasco. |