September 9, 2020

Olympia, WA

Today the Supreme Court transferred the Unemployment Law Project’s case to Thurston County Superior Court for a “determination on the merits.”  SLF took this case pro bono to help alleviate the suffering of hundreds of unemployed workers who are not getting their unemployment checks.  Jack said, “we had hoped for Supreme Court oversight to get things moving and to get people paid. We don’t know at this point whether this will help or hurt in the long run.  We will continue working on behalf of these worthy citizens.” 

Click here to see Order transferring case

SUPREME COURT GRANTS HEARING ON UNEMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT’S MANDAMUS PETITION

July 30, 2020

Olympia, WA

The Supreme Court doesn’t hear every case, but today the Washington State Supreme Court agreed to hear the Unemployment Law Project’s mandamus petition.  In the word’s of the Supreme Court:

Petitioners Unemployment Law Project and unemployed workers McKeezi Barraza and Marianne White, ask this court to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent Suzan LeVine, Commissioner for the Washington State Employment Security Department, to take numerous actions, including immediate payment of unemployment benefits. For reasons explained below, this original action is retained in this court for a decision on the merits.

This matter arises from the rapid and staggering increase in unemployment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the department, more than 2.2 million initial applications for unemployment benefits were filed since March 8, 2020. The sudden tidal wave of unemployment claims triggered by this public health crisis, accompanied by a massive and initially successful scheme by foreign actors to fraudulently obtain benefits, overwhelmed Washington’s unemployment benefits system, resulting in delays in processing claims and issuing payment of benefits to a significant number of unemployed workers. The numerous declarations of unemployed individuals submitted in this matter relate heartbreaking stories of frustration, despair, and stress arising from these delays.

The Court held: “Accordingly, this original action will be retained in this court for a decision on whether petitioners have made a sufficient showing that a writ of mandamus should issue against respondent.”

The Court also sent a letter outlining the briefing schedule.  These dates may change if the Court grants the petitioners’ pending motion to accelerate. 

Click here to see Supreme Court order Granting review

Click here to see Supreme Court letter setting dates

UNEMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT SEEKS ACCELERATED REVIEW OF MANDAMUS PETITION ASKING HIGH COURT TO ORDER EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT TO PAY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS WHICH HAVE BEEN WITHHELD FOR MONTHS IN SOME CASES; See Amicus Brief and Witness Statements Outlining Ongoing Damages Supporting Acceleration

June 23, 2020

Olympia, WA

Today the Sheridan Law Firm filed a motion seeking accelerated review and immediate relief arguing that the Supreme Court should promptly enforce Employment Security Department (ESD) Commissioner Suzan LeVine’s duty to ensure that unemployment compensation payments are made when due and to protect due process. ESD’s failure to make timely payments irreparably harms many unemployed workers statewide. Many unemployed workers are getting nothing back for their efforts at a time when they desperately need assistance. This is unacceptable and cannot persist. This Court is the appropriate forum to restore public trust and ensure that the unduly delayed payments are promptly processed.
The Court’s review of this matter cannot wait. Many claimants cannot meet their immediate, most basic needs and Commissioner LeVine has a clearly established duty to act in accordance with the law. Thus, the mandamus relief petitioners seek is warranted.

Click here to see ULP Motion for Accelerated Review and Immediate Relief

Click here to see WA State Psychological Association amicus motion

Click here to see Wash State Psychological Association amicus memo

Click here to see Court’s briefing schedule on motion to accelerate

Click here to see reply brief in motion to accelerate review

Click here to see Tirpak Reply Dec.

Click here to see Supp. Harrington Dec.

Click here to see KIRO 7 story

Click here to see 6/26 Seattle Times Story

Click here to see NY Times Story

Click here to see 7/2/20 KIRO 7 story

Click here for SLF Attorney Andra Kranzler radio interview

The motion to accelerate is supported by many sworn witness statements outlining the desperate status of Washington Citizens who have been improperly be denied benefits without a hearing.

062320 ULP – Supplemental Dec. of Tirpak FILED

062320 ULP – Amy Swanner Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Billie Abbit Affidavit_Declaration Filed

062320 ULP – Chelsea Altona Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Chrstine Mair Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Chynna Glenn Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – David Svoboda Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Fabian Paracuelles Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Flavia Feliciano Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Jeremy Bradford Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Jordan Jolma Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Kelli C. Ebert Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Marissa Riegert Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Michael DeMaddalena Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Miroslava Radovich Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Motion for Accelerated Review and Immediate Relief FILED

062320 ULP – Nadya Robinson Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Nicholas Petrish Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Randall Peters Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Shanyece Wake Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – Supplemental Dec. of Barraza FILED  

062320 ULP – Supplemental Dec. of White FILED

062320 ULP – Thomas Harrington Declaration FILED

062320 ULP – WIllam F. Burris Declaration FILED

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Unemployment Law Project Sues Washington State Seeking Order Demanding That Employment Security Department Comply With The Law And Pay Eligible Workers Without Delay; SLF Representing Plaintiffs Pro Bono

June 5, 2020

Olympia, WA

Today the Unemployment Law Project, McKeezi Taylor Barraza, and Marianne White filed a lawsuit in the Washington State Supreme Court seeking an order directing the Employment Security Department (“ESD”) Commissioner Suzan “Suzi” LeVine to comply with her duty to process and provide prompt payment of benefits to Washington’s unemployed. The lawsuit alleges that the “Commissioner has forestalled and, in some cases, outright halted unemployment benefits to legitimate, qualified claimants to verify identities. The lawsuit asks the Court to Order the Commissioner:

• To report to the Court all steps that have been taken and will be taken to ensure due process is protected and prompt payment of unemployment benefits is made;
• To take all actions necessary to process and ensure prompt payment of unemployment benefits;
• To provide claimants the required due process and refrain from cutting off benefits to claimants without providing notice and opportunity for hearing pre-termination of benefits.

The lawsuit also asks the Court to ensure timeliness of payments and appeals of denials, to make regular public reports, and provide legal assistance to applicants among other things.  The lawsuit does not seek money damages.

The lawsuit stems from the State’s slowing and halting unemployment benefit payments to honest, eligible citizens in response to fraudulent filings coming from oversees.  The lawsuit states that the “Court’s consideration is urgently needed because withholding unemployment benefits cuts off the only source of income and, thereby, sustenance for many across our state.”  The Sheridan Law Firm is representing the plaintiffs pro bono. 

Click here to see Petition

Click here to see Tirpak Dec

Click here to see Barraza Dec

Click here to see Hill Decl

Click here to see White Decl

Click here to see the NPR story on the filing

Click here to see the Seattle Times story of the filing

Click here to see NW News Network story

Click here to see KIRO news story

Click here to see King 5 news story

October 26, 2020

Spokane, WA

Today, Julie Atwood filed a petition asking the Washington State Supreme Court to review and overturn the decision of two judges at the Court of Appeals in Spokane–Judges Laurel Siddoway and Kevin Korsmo–who overturned the 2017 unanimous decision of the jury in Julie Atwood’s case.  The third judge, Robert Lawrence-Berrey, dissented from the majority’s opinion. 

Judges Siddoway and Korsmo wrote a 61-page opinion second guessing the jury, criticizing Julie Atwood as though she were a problem employee (which was MSA’s failed argument at trial), criticizing the trial judge for his thoughtful, often conservative, rulings on the admission of evidence, and criticizing Julie’s attorney for presenting admissible evidence.  Jack said, “This is a shocking ruling that shows the majority may have had its own agenda.”  See footnote 2 of petition below.  In the month-long trial, the jurors reviewed over 100 exhibits and heard the testimony of 41 witnesses. Jack said, “Judges Siddoway’s and Korsmo’s version of the facts are unrecognizable to me and certainly would be unrecognizable to the jury. Reading their opinion was like reading MSA’s appellate brief.”  Jack said, “Judges Siddoway and Korsmo did what is almost never done–they viewed the evidence on appeal in the light most favorable to MSA–the loser at trial–and not in the light most favorable to Julie Atwood, as is usually done on appeal.  If allowed to stand, this approach to reviewing jury decisions threatens our democracy and essentially eviscerates our constitutional right to a jury.”   The following is an excerpt from the petition:

The role of the jury is to be held ‘inviolate’ under Washington’s constitution.” State v.Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577, 590, 183 P.3d 267 (2008) (citing WASH. CONST. art. I § 21). “To the jury is consigned under the constitution ‘the ultimate power to weigh the evidence and determine the facts.’” Id.; RAP 13.4(b)(3).

Judges Siddoway’s and Korsmo’s decision delays justice for Julie for another year, but she will get justice once our Supreme Court clarifies the law to ensure that jury verdicts are respected and protected. 

Click here to see 2017 Judgment and Special Verdict Form

Click here to see 2018 Judge’s order on MSA’s Post-Trial Motions

Click here to see 2020 Atwood v MSA Div 3 opinion

Click here to see 2020 Atwood Petition to the Supreme Court

Click here to see 7/20/17 sanctions order against MSA for willful discovery abuses–not mentioned by Court of Appeals in opinion

ALSO SEE TRIALS AND SETTLEMENT SECTION FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS CASE

2020 MSA WHISTLEBLOWER Julie Atwood Is Waiting For Justice To Be Done

January 28, 2020

Spokane, WA

The wheels of justice turn slowly.  In August 2015, former MSA Manager Julie Atwood filed a lawsuit against Mission Support Alliance (“MSA”) and MSA Vice President Steve Young for damages flowing from her wrongful termination for whistleblowing.   The trial in this matter began on September 11, 2017, and on October 10, 2017, a Benton County jury awarded Ms. Atwood $8.1 million in damages caused by MSA’s wrongful termination of Ms. Atwood only days after she blew the whistle on MSA’s misconduct.  On liability, the jury unanimously found that:

• MSA engaged in retaliation against Ms. Atwood;
• MSA Vice President Steve Young aided and abetted in MSA’s retaliation against Ms. Atwood;
• MSA wrongfully discharged Ms. Atwood for whistleblowing;
• MSA engaged in gender discrimination against Ms. Atwood;
• MSA Vice President Steve Young aided and abetted in MSA’s gender discrimination.

Click here to see complaint filed in Benton County Superior Court.

Click here to see jury verdict and judgment.

Click here to see Court’s jury instructions.

See website “Trials” section under Atwood for details.  In addition, she was awarded $1.5 million in attorney fees and legal costs, but she has not been paid. In February 2018, MSA appealed the jury’s verdict to the Court of Appeals in Spokane, and simultaneously attacked Trial Judge Federspeil’s rulings in the media.

Mission Support Alliance is actually a partnership between billion dollar companies Leidos and Centerra Group.  Together, they have responsibility for the Mission Support Contract with the United States Department of Energy at the Hanford Site.

Click here to link to Leidos website.

Click here to link to Centerra Group website.

The briefing to the Court of Appeals has been in for some time.  The oral argument on the case occurred on January 28, 2020.  By most accounts, it did not go well for MSA.  Click below to hear Court of Appeals oral argument

Click here to see Masters Law Group brief on behalf of MSA and Young

Click here to see Julie Atwood’s responsive brief to Court of Appeals

Now Ms. Atwood waits for the three-judge panel to issue their ruling either affirming the jury’s verdict or finding fault with the verdict.  Either way, there is a likelihood that the losing party will petition for review by the State Supreme Court. We expect a ruling by the Court Appeals in April or May 2020. But if a petition is filed with the Supreme Court, it may another year or two before the case gets resolved.  Jack Sheridan commented, “persons not involved in the litigation process find it hard to believe that justice can take so long, but we are happy to wait as long as it takes so that the Court of Appeals gets it right, and if need be, so the Supreme Court can say the final words: ‘jury verdict affirmed.’”

September 23, 2019
Seattle, WA

Today, the Sheridan Law Firm doubled in size.  Jack has owned this law firm since 1992.  Mark Rose has been an associate attorney here since 2014.  On Monday, associate attorneys Andra Kranzler and Justin Abbasi joined the firm.  Andra has spent her adult life advocating on behalf of workers and the poor most recently at the Fair Work Center.  Justin has been a law librarian, a research assistant, and judicial assistant at the Washington State Supreme Court.  Both are passionate about seeking justice for whistleblowers and victims of discrimination, and they will add their voices and their talents to help our clients prevail against companies that skirt the law and retaliate against those who stand up for justice and fairness. Welcome!

What a great team.

Ours is David and Goliath litigation against giant companies with unlimited resources.  With this team, there is no company too big or too powerful to escape accountability.

Ms. Robb proved that she was retaliated against and wrongfully terminated for opposing efforts to privatize the Crisis Response Unit in 2015, because twenty years before, it was privatized and became a monopoly, requiring the counties to intervene to protect the citizens from high costs and poor service. 

The jury found:

• The Counties wrongfully discharged Ms. Robb for reporting improper governmental actions; and
• The Counties retaliated against Ms. Robb by terminating her for reporting sexual harassment

Click here to see Robb civil complaint

Click here to see Robb jury verdict and judgment

Click here for Court’s jury instructions

For detailed facts about the case, go to “Trials and Settlements” and click on Robb.

In Addition To The $1.5 Million Already Awarded By The Jury, Court Awards Linda Robb An Additional $965,100.75 For Attorney Fees And Costs In Wrongful Discharge Case Against Benton And Franklin Counties Total Recovery: $2,526,420.75

March 4, 2019

Walla Walla, WA

Today Superior Court Judge the Honorable John Lohrmann signed a stipulated judgment awarding Linda Robb $965,100.75 in attorney fees and costs in her wrongful discharge case against Benton and Franklin Counties.  This is in addition to the $1.56 million jury award she received from the jury in January.  Jack Sheridan said, “by agreeing to our hourly rates and hours worked on this case, the Counties saved themselves thousands of dollars that would have been incurred by the Sheridan Law Firm (and thus paid by the defendants) in any motion practice related to plaintiff’s petition for attorney fees and costs, which are awarded by law in cases like this. Ms. Robb is pleased that she can now put all of this behind her and move on with her life.”

Click here to see stipulated judgment on attorney fees and costs

Click here to see jury verdict and judgment on jury verdict

January 31, 2019

Walla Walla, WA

Today a twelve-member Walla Walla jury awarded Linda Robb, the former Human Services Administrator for the Benton and Franklin Counties Department of Human Services, $1,561,320 in damages for whistleblower retaliation.

The evidence produced at trial showed that through the winter of 2014, Benton County Commissioner Shon Small was in talks with Barbara Mead, the then head of Lourdes, about giving the Crisis Response Unit (CRU) to Lourdes.  At the time, the CRU was a county department under Human Services, that provided assistance to persons in need of mental health services, and made referrals to inpatient facilities for those who need that level of care.  Ms. Robb, as head of Human Services, was in charge of the CRU and was responsible for guiding its future.  Commissioner Small kept those discussions with Ms. Mead from Ms. Robb, and ordered her subordinates and the Benton County administration to not tell Ms. Robb what he was doing.

In March, 2015, Ms. Robb learned from two subordinates that Small was working to give the CRU to Lourdes.  Upon learning this, she gave two presentations to the Commissioners and another to the public outlining the potential for a conflict of interest if the same company that has the CRU also has the inpatient beds.  The risk would be that the company would funnel patients, not for medical reasons, from the CRU to fill empty inpatient beds.

At trial, Mr. Robb testified that from that point forward, Small retaliated against her.  At one point Small said to her:

“you don’t need to explain anything to me… as far as I am concerned you are a pathetic liar and human being and I will never trust anything you say. You are a miserable liar and person and I do not want to ever see or listen to you again.”

Small then bragged about his statement to the other commissioners and to Ms. Mead (in an email).

Ms. Robb reported Small’s conduct to Janet Taylor, who was the Franklin County Human Resources Director at the time.  She began a hostile work environment investigation focused on Small.  At trial, plaintiff argued that once Benton County found out about the Taylor investigation they worked to fire Ms. Robb.  She was sent home on administrative leave and then fired.  Both actions were covered in the local media.  No investigation into Small’s conduct was ever completed.  Ms. Taylor was removed from her position by the Franklin County Board before she could complete the investigation.  Ms. Taylor testified that she was told that she was removed because Benton County wanted her removed.  When Ms. Robb was terminated and Ms. Taylor was removed from her position, Ms. Taylor testified that she gave Franklin County Prosecutor Shawn Sant 600 pages of documents and a timeline (as an electronic file) outlining the facts related to the Robb harassment complaint against Small and in rebuttal to Benton County’s decision to terminate Ms. Robb.  Mr. Sant testified that he never got it.  The 600-page document was never used to complete the investigation into Small’s alleged misconduct. The document was produced by Franklin County during the litigation and was admitted as an exhibit at trial.

Ms. Robb testified that she brought her concerns about Small to Benton County Commissioner Beaver, who initially suggested that Small, who was the Benton County Commissioner assigned to oversee Human Services, could be reassigned to another task to solve the problem, but he quickly withdrew that suggestion in an email.  Beaver voted to send Ms. Robb on administrative leave for alleged “misconducts,” which were never identified, and he also voted for Ms. Robb’s termination.

Benton County Commissioner Delvin also voted to send Ms. Robb on administrative leave for alleged “misconducts,” and he also voted for Ms. Robb’s termination. Delvin became the Commissioners’ spokesperson in newspaper articles that covered Ms. Robb’s being sent on administrative leave and covered her termination.  Ms. Robb and Commissioner Delvin were named in both articles.

Franklin County Commissioners Koch and Miller voted in favor of Ms. Robb’s termination (they were not consulted by Benton County regarding sending Ms. Robb on administrative leave). Only Commissioner Peck voted against her termination.

Jack Sheridan, the attorney representing Ms. Robb said, “Justice was done.  This case revealed the terrible reality that the county commissioners are not accountable for their actions. Small can say or do anything to the Benton County staff and can have them terminated on a whim, but unlike a corporate executive, he can’t be fired.  He can’t be counseled, and he can’t be suspended.”  “Ms. Robb’s staff betrayed her because Small told them to do so, and because they feared for their jobs.”

He said, “Linda Robb has been vindicated. The courthouse and the ballot box are the only two places the People can hold these commissioners accountable.”

Click here to see Robb jury verdict form

Click here to see Robb – Trial Brief

Click here to see Taylor outline

Click here to see “Linda found out” email

Click here to see Robb report to Taylor of Small comments

Click here to see Sant email to Benton County seeking evidence re Robb admin leave

Click here to see Small email to Mead bragging about liar comment to Robb

Click here to see Beaver email declining to help Ms. Robb by reassigning Small

Click here to see admin leave letter signed by Benton County Administrator David Sparks

Click here to see newspaper accounts of Small’s work to send the CRU to Lourdes and Delvin’s quotes regarding sending Mr. Robb on administrative leave and firing

Click here to see Robb termination letter

Click here to see Tri-City Herald article

Ms. Trussler was a top manager at the Washington Department of Transportation.  Following a head injury, her management sought to move her out of the position and finally terminated her claiming she could not do her job or any job after she complained of disability discrimination.  The jury found that Ms. Trussler proved her case of retaliation in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination and awarded her $1.2 million in compensatory damages, and recommended that she be reinstated to her position.     

Click here to see Trussler Complaint

Click here to see the Trussler $1.2 million jury verdict

Click here to see Court’s Jury Instructions

June 26, 2018

Seattle, WA

Today a King County jury found that managers at the Washington State Department of Transportation are guilty of retaliation against Stacy Trussler, a former director who was “disability separated” by WSDOT management in 2016.  The jury awarded Ms. Trussler $1.2 million in damages and recommended that she be reinstated to a comparable position at WSDOT with protections against further retaliation.

Ms. Trussler is an experienced civil engineer with a master’s degree in environmental engineering from Washington State University (1993).  She joined WSDOT in 1995, and in 2010 she was promoted to Director of the WSDOT Urban Planning Office (UPO).  The UPO was responsible for representing the Transportation Secretary at regional boards and county-wide forums, and as the Director of UPO, Ms. Trussler did so and led three technical teams: travel demand modeling, corridor planning studies, and transportation systems analysis.

In October 2012, Ms. Trussler suffered a head injury in a motorcycle accident, and after she returned to work she was informally accommodated by her then manger, Brian Smith, who permitted Ms. Trussler to telecommute, rest as needed, and to have a flex schedule until he retired in February 2014.  Under Mr. Smith, Ms. Trussler had positive performance evaluations before and after her accident.

Ms. Trussler alleged in her complaint and at trial that after Mr. Smith retired, the newly hired Assistant Secretary for Economy and Community, Amy Scarton (who is currently the assistant secretary for the Washington State Ferries Division), harassed, retaliated, and discriminated against her owing to her disability, and that Kerry Woehler, Mr. Smith’s replacement (who is currently the WSDOT planning manager), also engaged in harassment, retaliation, and discrimination, which included cutting off Ms. Trussler’s telecommuting rights after Ms. Trussler reported discrimination against her and another employee, both of whom were disabled and telecommuting as accommodations long before Ms. Scarton was hired.  The jury found for Ms. Trussler on her retaliation claim.

The Honorable Jim Rogers presided over the three-week jury trial.  The jury deliberated for a total of two days before reaching its verdict, which included lost wages totaling $600,000.00 and emotional harm damages totaling $600,000.00.  The jury also recommended that Ms. Trussler be reinstated.  Jack Sheridan, the attorney representing Ms. Trussler, said, “The decision as to whether reinstatement is appropriate will be decided by Judge Rogers at a later date.”

Mr. Sheridan said, “This has been a terrible ordeal for Stacy.  She is so grateful for the jury’s verdict.  After trying for years to get someone at WSDOT to listen to her complaints, the jury’s attention and understanding are everything to her.”

Mr. Sheridan said, Ms. Trussler testified that by October 2014, she was so upset with the conduct of Ms. Scarton, Ms. Woehler, and Human Resources, that she called the WSDOT Assistant Secretary of Strategic, Enterprise Services, Katy Taylor, and reported what she believed to be misconduct amounting to discrimination and fraud.

At trial, Ms. Taylor could not recall most of the facts, so most of her written statement was read to the jury (see below).  She admitted that she did not follow up on Ms. Trussler’s report, and that she told the substance of the report to the persons identified by Ms. Trussler as having engaged in misconduct.

Mr. Sheridan said, “Beginning in January 2015, Ms. Trussler was sent home on what plaintiff alleged were trumped up charges of time card fraud, and while she was gone with orders not to communicate with anyone other than WSDOT Director of Human Resources Jeff Pelton, the management team dismantled the UPO, so when she returned in June, after it became obvious that she would be vindicated, she was subject to a “lay-off” of just one person (Ms. Trussler ) and all of her direct reports were assigned elsewhere.  She was then placed in another job that would soon also be eliminated and after that placement she was told she could not perform the job owing to her disability.  She was later “disability separated” in February 2016.  Except for a brief homework assignment in June, from June 2015 to February 2016, she was never placed in a job.”

Click here to see Trussler Complaint

Click here to see the Trussler $1.2 million jury verdict

Click here to see stipulated judgment on attorney fees

Click here to see a copy of Katy Taylor’s witness statement

Click here to see a copy of Heidi Mabbott’s witness statement

Click here to see Heidi Mabbott’s trial testimony

Click here to see a copy of Kerri Woehler’s December 2014 memo denying telecommuting

Click here to see Amy Scarton’s letter sending Ms. Trussler home for “investigation”

Click here to see HR Manager Todd Dowler’s letter to Jack on return issues

Click here to see article on Ms. Trussler–“Women in Industry Leadership”

Click here to see Ms. Trussler’s 2011 performance review

Click here to see Ms. Trussler’s performance review (signed in 2013)

May 19, 2017

Today, plaintiffs filed a brief with the Court of Appeals outlining alleged errors committed by Trial Court Judge, the Honorable Suzanne Parisien, which justify a new trial. Jack said, “In this appeal, we are hoping to change the way trials are conducted in Washington, because Washington trial courts currently ignore the impacts of implicit bias (the tendency to automatically favor one race over another), even though many federal and state courts have addressed the issue in jury selection and in the conduct of the litigation.  We need to catch up.  We also need to ensure that juries are diverse. This appeal, if successful, with go a long way to obtaining those goals and to ensuring equal justice in Washington.”

Click here to see a copy of the brief.

Black Civil Rights Matter—Washington Courts Need To Instruct Juries That Implicit Bias Is Real And Has To Be Considered In Jury Deliberations And That Management’s Lies At Trial May Be Evidence Of Discrimination

Implicit Bias Jury Instruction

As a general rule, in whistleblower and discrimination cases involving white plaintiffs brought by the Sheridan Law Firm, Jack has observed that the plaintiff’s credibility has been on an equal footing with white managers who testify at trial, but in cases involving black plaintiffs, Jack has seen mostly white Washington juries ignore and explain away the lies told by white managers in open court, and magnify minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the black plaintiffs—concluding that the black plaintiffs are not credible or are at least less credible than their white managers—regardless of the level of contradictory testimony by the white managers. This is implicit bias, and Washington attorneys need to address it with jury instructions that link management’s lies to discrimination and admonish juries to reflect on their automatic tendencies to believe or disbelieve a witness owing to race. Washington courts need to address it by instructing juries on the dangers of implicit bias in deliberations, and by finding ways to make juries more diverse.

In a criminal case, the Washington State Supreme Court recognized the need for diverse juries:

• From a practical standpoint, studies suggest that compared to diverse juries, all-white juries tend to spend less time deliberating, make more errors, and consider fewer perspectives. Equal Justice Initiative Report. In contrast, diverse juries were significantly more able to assess reliability and credibility, avoid presumptions of guilt, and fairly judge a criminally accused. “By every deliberation measure, … heterogeneous groups outperformed homogeneous groups.” These studies confirm what seems obvious from reflection: more diverse juries result in fairer trials.

State v. Saintcalle, 178 Wn.2d 34, 50, 309 P.3d 326 (2013).

On the issue of implicit bias in the workplace, renowned University of Washington Psychologist Anthony G. Greenwald, Ph.D. has opined that, “There is now little doubt that implicit bias, in the form of unconscious attitudes and stereotypes, is a cause of discrimination.” He has found:

• Implicit biases are pervasive and are often observed in more than 70% of Americans, most of whom genuinely and sincerely regard themselves as lacking in biases. Research using IAT measures finds that persons are often unaware of discrepancies between (on the one hand) their explicitly expressed—and often genuinely endorsed—egalitarian beliefs and attitudes and (on the other hand) the implicit stereotypes and attitudes that are revealed by their IAT measures. Research studies consistently find that a majority of persons who display implicitly biased associations on Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures are unaware of possessing those biases.

Click here to see example of federal case supporting Dr. Greenwald’s expert testimony under tougher federal standard for admitting such testimony (Samaha v. Washington State Dept. of Transportation (West))

Implicit bias also exists on jury panels, so in 2016, the American Bar Association adopted “Principles for Juries and Jury Trials,” which recognizes the implications of implicit bias in the deliberations of juries and recommended the following remedial practices:

The court should:

1. Instruct the jury on implicit bias and how such bias may impact the decision-making process without the juror being aware of it; and

2. Encourage the jurors to resist making decisions based on personal likes or dislikes or gut feelings that may be based on attitudes toward race, national origin, gender, age, religious belief, income, occupation, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

ABA Principle Six. “The American Bar Association recognizes the legal community’s ongoing need to refine and improve jury practice so that the right to jury trial is preserved and juror participation enhanced.”

Washington judges are ignoring the ABA’s recommendations—Washington judges do not presently require or give implicit bias jury instructions. Jurors need such instructions to check themselves and other jurors to ensure that they are not making credibility and trustworthiness decisions based on automatic views of parties and witnesses.

Click here to see ABA Principles for Juries and Jury Trials

Click here to see Dr. Greenwald’s report in Johnson v. City of Seattle

In post-verdict interviews of jurors by Jack, some non-black jurors explained away the lies told by white managers with phrases like, “we thought they just didn’t remember.”  In one case, a juror said that, had the plaintiffs had other witnesses to support their position, the seven plaintiffs would have seemed more believable (six African Americans and one Asian American).  Had the plaintiffs all been white, would this view have been articulated? Jack suggests that implicit bias instructions should be given in every case, because the court cannot know when a juror is using automatic responses to evaluate persons who are different.

Pretext Jury Instruction

The Sheridan Law Firm recently brought three discrimination cases to trial in King County (Seattle) representing black employees as plaintiffs.  In each case, there was solid testimony showing that managers lied about key facts and failed to follow procedures.  In each case, Jack asked the court for a jury instruction, which is given in other jurisdictions, to instruct the jury on pretext:

• You may find that the plaintiff’s [race or other protected status] was a substantial factor in the defendant’s decision to terminate the plaintiff if it has been proved that the defendant’s stated reasons for the decision are not the real reasons, but a pretext to hide discrimination.

This is a critical instruction to show the jury that lying matters, and that proving that the defendant lied about the reason for doing what it did (termination, suspension, demotion) is evidence of discrimination. Jack stated, “without a pretext jury instruction to connect the dots, the long list of lies proves nothing more than the managers are liars.  The pretext instruction would have connected the dots in each case.”  This jury instruction would also benefit white plaintiffs who bring gender, age, sexual preference, military service, and disability discrimination cases, because they also have to prove that discrimination was a substantial factor in an adverse employment action (like termination), and in most cases must rely on evidence of pretext as circumstantial evidence of discrimination.

Monroe v. City of Seattle

This case involves an African American plaintiff claiming disability discrimination.  The mostly white and Asian American jury deliberated only 2 hours, and according to the sworn statement of the one black juror, did not review trial exhibits before reaching a decision against the plaintiff.  The trial judge refused to give either an implicit bias or pretext jury instruction. Oral argument on Ms. Monroe’s motion for a new trial will be heard on January 27, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in the Honorable John Erlick’s courtroom (10^th floor, room W-1060). The courthouse address is:

King County Superior Court
Third and James
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104

Click here to see trial brief in Monroe v. City of Seattle

Click here to see Monroe v. City of Seattle motion for a new trial

Click here to see Exhibits 1-26 in Monroe v. City of Seattle

Click here to see Juror Declaration in Monroe v. City of Seattle

Click here to read Caucasian Manager Jensen’s trial testimony in Monroe v. City of Seattle

Trial Ex. 5 (procedures for fitness for duty)

Trial Ex. 71 (employee acknowledgement-form)

Trial Ex.-102 (observation form)

Trial Ex. 108 (email)

Trial Ex. 328 (Jensen notes )

Trial Ex. 332 (Jenson timeline)

Click here to read Jensen’s contradictory sworn statement (compare par. 15 to pages 107-110 of Jensen trial transcript; then look at pages 111-112 in which Seattle City Attorney offers to take blame for contradictory testimony by Jensen)

Farah v. Hertz Transporting, Inc

This is a religious discrimination case involving twenty-six Muslim African Americans, who are Somali refugees.  They were fired for praying at work without clocking out—after being permitted to do so for a decade before a new white manager took over—while smokers and others did not have to clock out for breaks.  The trial judge refused to give a pretext instruction.  The Court of Appeals explored the pretext jury instruction, and although the court recognized that it is an accurate statement of the law, the Court ruled that it need not be given.  The Court held, “While the instruction might be appropriate, the arguments in its favor are not compelling enough to hold that it is an abuse of discretion to refuse to give the instruction.” Farah v. Hertz Transporting, Inc., 196 Wn. App. 171, 383 P.3d 552, 558 (2016).

The Sheridan Law Firm has petitioned the Washington State Supreme Court in Farah, asking those nine justices to weigh in and make this instruction mandatory, as it is in a number of federal courts.

Click here to see Supreme Court petition in Farah v. Hertz Transporting

Click here to see Court of Appeals decision Farah v. Hertz Transporting (West)

Click here to see Washington Employment Lawyer’s Association friend of the court brief

Johnson v. City of Seattle

This is a race discrimination case involving seven plaintiffs: six are African American and one is Asian American.  The trial judge refused to give the implicit bias instructions proposed by plaintiffs, refused to allow Dr. Anthony Greenwald to testify about implicit bias in the workplace, and refused to give the pretext instruction.  The case is currently on appeal.

Jack noted, “Our jury had no African Americans on the panel (although three jurors were not Caucasian), which meant that the jury lacked the possibility (not guarantee) of having a perspective of the African American experience.  I asked the court to strike the jury pool and bring in a pool that had African Americans, but the Court denied my request.”

Jack notes there are experiences unique to African Americans, which Caucasians do not experience.  For example, there is a phrase called driving while black, which was explained in the Supreme Court case of State v. Valentine in a dissent by former Justice Sanders:

• Young African American males frequently report being stopped and detained for reasons that are superficially pretextual. Even affluent people of color, who drive expensive or late-model cars, often report being stopped by law enforcement officers because of their race. This practice has become so prevalent that the actual justification for such detentions has become widely known as “Driving While black (D.W.B.).”

State v. Valentine, 132 Wn.2d 1, 28 n.1, 935 P.2d 1294, 1308 (1997) (Sanders dissent) (majority held that in Washington, a person cannot resist an illegal arrest).  Jack noted that “a Caucasian cannot have experienced the driving while black phenomenon, which is one of those life experiences that affects how one connects the dots when given certain facts, and in evaluating this case, the jury lacked the life experiences needed to give this case fair consideration—they could not connect the dots as to why the plaintiffs’ mistreatment related to race.”

Click here to see Motion for New Trial in Johnson v. City of Seattle

081516 Johnson Trial Transcript morning session (picking jury)

081516 Johnson Trial Transcript afternoon session (picking jury)

081616 Johnson Trial Transcript morning session (picking jury)

081616 Trial Transcript afternoon session (picking jury)

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO ENSURE THAT BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS MATTER IN WASHINGTON?

State Court judges are elected by the people at every level.  They campaign for election and reelection.  Attend forums where the candidates speak and ask:

• What will you do to ensure that juries are diverse, since our Supreme Court recognizes that diverse juries do a better job?
• Will you adopt the American Bar Association’s recommendation on instructing juries about implicit bias and if not, why not?

That’s a good start.  Dialogue is the first step toward change.  The Sheridan Law Firm and other law firms throughout the State that focus on civil rights will continue to bring these issues to the attention of trial judges and judges at the appellate level until our judiciary recognizes that black civil rights matter, and until they do something about it.

Click here to see ABA Principles for Juries and Jury Trials

Click here for a copy of State-v-Saintcalle (West)

Click here for copy of State v. Valentine (West)

May 9, 2016

Today, the Court of Appeals reinstated the decision of the administrative law judge holding that Aaron Swanson was subjected to years of whistleblower retaliation after he reported that Lineworker Instructor Ron Allen had arbitrarily created and administered a test as a part of the lineworker apprenticeship process—a test no one could pass—then agreed to pass the apprentices if they brought him whiskey.  Every apprentice brought whiskey to class except for Aaron.  Ron Allen happened to be the nephew of the union’s business manager, and Aaron was shunned and harassed by crew chiefs while City Light management ignored his complaints.  The administrative law judge found in Aaron’s favor but the Superior Court overturned his victory.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the ALJ finding that the City’s former whistleblower ordinance was inadequate, and that under the State statute (RCW 42.41), Aaron produced substantial evidence to support his claim.  Open the Champaign!

Click here to see Court of Appeals decision

Click her to see the 2013 ALJ’s decision

April 21, 2017

Today Administrative Law Judge Lisa Dublin ordered the City of Seattle to pay Aaron Swanson over $100,000 in attorney fees and costs in connection with his whistleblower retaliation win in his case against the City.  The facts supporting the decision are outlined in the Court of Appeals opinion (see below).  Jack Sheridan, Aaron’s attorney, stated, “Aaron is very pleased that justice was finally done, and that the City was held accountable.”

Click here to see Court’s Findings re: attorney fees and costs

Click here to see Swanson Signed Attorney Fee Judgment Against City of Seattle

Tacoma, WA

July 6, 2016

Today the State agreed to pay Don Gillespie $700,000 to settle his whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against the Washington State Ferries. Gillespie is a Shipwright Foreman for the Ferries. He works at the Eagle Harbor Division on Bainbridge Island.

According to papers filed in the case, in 2015, ferry worker Steve Chaussee was awarded $1 million by a Thurston County jury for whistleblower retaliation by ferry management, who perceived Chaussee to be the whistleblower who reported another worker’s charging his time for being at work while he was really away from work coaching baseball. Chaussee was demoted twice as a result, but he was not the actual whistleblower.

Don Gillespie was the actual whistleblower. After he and Chaussee had reported the improper conduct to management without any action being taken, Gillespie hired a third party to take pictures of Ferry Worker Jack Nannery coaching instead of working. Gillespie drafted a handwritten whistleblower complaint, and he and the third party brought the photos and complaint to a meeting with an investigator at the State Auditor’s office, who formally received the complaint and the photos.

The investigator promised them that no one would learn their identities. Under the law, “the identity or identifying characteristics of any person who in good faith provides information in an investigation under this section is confidential at all times, unless the person consents to disclosure by written waiver or by acknowledging his or her identity as a witness who provides information in an investigation.” RCW 42.40.040(2).

In 2009, the State Auditor released Gillespie’s whistleblower complaint to the Ferry’s managers, and it circulated from one manager to the next. At the Chaussee trial, his managers admitted that they could tell from the handwriting that Gillespie was in fact the real whistleblower, but no one in management returned the complaint to the auditor, or made an effort to tell Gillespie that they knew he was the whistleblower. After that, Gillespie alleged he was subjected to a hostile work environment and ongoing retaliation, but he didn’t know why until February 2015, when Vern Day, the Shop Manager, submitted a sworn statement in court saying that he recognized the handwriting. In a later sworn deposition, he admitted to knowing that Gillespie wrote the complaint.

Jack Sheridan, the attorney representing Gillespie said, “We are very pleased that the State came to the table to resolve this case now. This case reveals a significant security breach at the State Auditor’s Office, which calls into question whether the identities of state whistleblowers who report fraud, waste, and abuse will be protected by the very department entrusted to investigate that abuse. We all hope that the actions that led to release of the Gillespie complaint will not be repeated.”

The case was set for trial in February 2017.

Click here to see King5 news story

Click here to see Gillespie complaint

Click here to see Gillespie Tort Claim

Click here to See Vern Day Declaration saying recognized handwriting

Click here to see Chaussee Verdict Form

Click here to see Chaussee Trial Brief

Someone blew the whistle on a State ferry employee who was leaving work early to coach a children’s baseball team and billing the State as though he was working a full day.  Mr. Chaussee proved at trial that he was perceived to have been the whistleblower when in fact he was not, and he demoted owing to his management’s misperception.  The jury found that:

• Chaussee was a perceived whistleblower
• Chaussee was demoted

And the State failed to prove that:

• The demotion was taken for reasons unrelated to Mr. Chaussee’s status as a whistleblower; and
• An improper retaliatory motive was not a substantial factor in the decision to demote Mr. Chaussee.

The jury also found that Mr. Chaussee suffered noneconomic damages in the amount of $1 million.

Click here to see Chaussee Trial Brief

Click here to see State’s CR 68 $10,000 offer of judgment

0Click here to see the Chaussee Jury Verdict Form

Click here to see attorney fee award