The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Don’t be afraid to speak up when your government is wrong.  Silence surrenders your power as a citizen of the United States of America. In 2025, silence may lead to  dictatorship. Stop thinking of yourself as a democrat or as a  republican or independent.  You are a citizen of the United States of America. Your loyalty should not be to a party or to a person. Your loyalty must be to the Constitution. The Constitution tells us how  government should be run and describes the powers and duties of Congress, the President, and the judiciary. It also contains the amendments to the Constitution that give us individual rights (the first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights). Speak up against those who would abandon the Constitution. Speak out against anyone who supports those who would destroy our government–and vote for candidates who support the Constitution.

Practice speaking out. It’s okay to criticize and make fun of those we have elected and those who they have appointed. It’s your First Amendment right. Below “the Donald”  = Trump. 

A PRESIDENTIAL RECIPE BY JACK SHERIDAN

Take a dick and combine it with a potato (a tater); you get the Donald: a dick-tater.

THE SWAGGER BY JACK SHERIDAN

I saw a middle-aged white man swagger into a bakery. He looked  silly doing a swagger there.

Not like John Wayne or Steve McQueen swaggering on the TV. Those were real swaggers even though it was fiction.

Thinking about the contrast and thinking about the old white man with orange hair doing a swagger. It just looks stupid; stupid is as stupid does.

VOLTAIRE’S TIMELESS WORDS TELL US WHY PEOPLE WHO ACT  
LIKE THE DONALD ARE DANGEROUS

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

Some Recent Absurdities

• Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential race. It’s absurd for the Donald’s supporters to think that the Donald really won the race in 2020, but the victory was stolen owing to serious fraud in the vote. More than 50 lawsuits were filed by the Donald and his supporters claiming serious fraud in the vote. Those lawsuits were dismissed at every court level up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court mostly for lack of any supporting evidence or lack of jurisdiction.
• On January 6, 2021, the Donald directed his followers to march on the capitol ….It’s absurd to say that the attack was not violent and was not meant to stop the last vote of the Senate in the hope of stealing the election.
• It’s absurd for the Donald’s supporters to think Ukraine started the war with Russia. We were all present when Russia viciously invaded Ukraine. It’s absurd to think that millions of eyewitnesses could be fooled by the Donald. No one is that dumb.
• Section 1 of the 14^th AMENDMENT provides that:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It is absurd for anyone to think that by a stroke of his magic marker the Donald can ignore the United States Constitution and deny citizenship to “[a]ll persons born . . . in the United States.”

• See WA v. Trump 14th Amendment preliminary-injunction-motion 
• See Order-granting-plaintiffs-motion-for-a-temporary-restraining-order
• See Senator Murphy’s list of Trump’s corruption in first 6 weeks

In August 2024, I was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.  Following my doctor’s advice, I set out to close the business within six months.  I have transferred all of my active cases to other attorneys. I hope to be present as a spectator watching the trials and appeal hearings that remain.    

I just want to say that I am so privileged to have represented such brave and honest clients–they stood up and told the truth knowing that they were jeopardizing their careers and their financial stability.  Their employers had sometimes unlimited resources and pliable witnesses; my clients had nothing but the truth. They proved that money isn’t everything and that David can beat Goliath in front of a jury.  

Over the years, I have been blessed with excellent attorneys and staff. I am proud to say thank you to each and every one whose hard work and significant contributions let us fight the good fight for all those years.

I will miss practicing law, and I’ll miss the trials and the collegiality, but nothing goes on forever. The only exception I can think of is love, and I am so lucky to be loved by Angela, Jacky, and Sara. They make every day perfect.

Much love to all of you.

Jack

I can be reached at jack@nullsheridanlawfirm.com.

May 14, 2024

BELLINGHAM, WA

Today, a Whatcom County jury awarded former Director of the WWU Office of Internal Auditor Antonia Allen more than $2.9 million in damages for whistleblower retaliation. At the trial, Antonia proved that she was terminated in retaliation for investigating and reporting to her  management (including WWU President Sabah Randhawa) and to federal and state authorities, that WWU staff and faculty members in the Woodring College of Education offered and granted false academic credentials to students with the intent to bolster their credit loads for financial aid purposes–essentially, faculty and staff were giving students credit for attending classes they did not in fact attend so they could obtain federal financial aid money.  As a part of the investigation, Ms. Allen met with a federal investigator from the U.S. Department of Education who told her those acts constituted fraud against the United States.  Ms. Allen reported the agent’s statement to WWU management, and in response, she was pressured to remove the word “fraud” from the report.  When she would not remove that language, President Randhawa fired her. 

At trial, President Randhawa stated under oath that Ms. Allen had several deficiencies as the reasons she was fired.  He admitted that her refusal to remove the offending language as a reason for the termination.  At trial, the State was unable to produce any evidence that showed deficiencies. 

The jury deliberated more than five days before reaching their verdict.

Click here to see Allen – Complaint

Click here to see OIA Charter; its purpose was to protect the auditor from management

Allen – Allen v State of WA Verdict Form

Click here to see Woodring Internship Irregularities Investigation Report

Click here to see OIA contacts the OIG to request clarification

Click here to see email with committee head attaching notes of talk with DOE

April 10, 2024

Olympia, WA

After a protracted appeal to the Division 2 Washington Court of Appeals following the trial court’s dismissal of his case before trial, John Boespflug finally got his day in Court.  

Click here to see court’s opinion

Today a Thurston County jury found that L&I managers retaliated against Mr. Boespflug (“Booz-floog”) after he reported that his manager was favoring his manager’s  friends by shielding them from having to pay penalties.

The Court of Appeals listed four instances in which Mr. Boespflug is a whistleblower under RCW 42.40. Here is the first one.

On April 20, 2016, Boespflug filed an “ethics complaint” with Nancy Kellogg regarding Ault’s handling of the citations [Boespflug] issued to Pacific Air and Kraft Electric. Kellogg is an assistant attorney general in the labor and industries division of the state attorney general’s office who is designated to receive whistleblower reports. Because Boespflug filed a complaint of “improper governmental action” to an attorney general “designee,” he is a whistleblower as to his first complaint.

Click here to see BOESPFLUG Complaint –

Click here to see Jury Verdict Form

Click here to see Boespflug – Judgment on Verdict

Click here to see Ticket Cancelled by Supervisor

May 2, 2023 Tacoma WA

Today The Washington State Division II Court of Appeals rejected Judge Karena Kirkendoll’s October 2021 dismissal of Dr. Marshall’s lawsuit against UW Tacoma for race discrimination and creating a hostile work environment owing to race.  Their 50-page opinion provides a detailed walk through of a mountain of facts supporting Dr. Marshall’s claims.  The Court’s opinion also recounts  decisions by the UW management that supports white privilege and institutional discrimination at UW Tacoma including testimony by experts, witnesses, and internal reports finding discrimination.

Click here to see Court of Appeals opinion

UW-Tacoma Assistant Professor Gillian Marshall, a black woman, has been denied tenure by the white faculty in the Social Work and Criminal Justice unit (it’s now a school) at UW-Tacoma. The denial was allegedly based on the SWCJ faculty’s claim that her scholarship was adequate but not outstanding, and her teaching was poor. UW-Tacoma management rubber stamped their decision, most recently including Dean Keva Miller, who on September 16, 2021, denied Dr. Marshall a merit salary increase on the same basis.

• Click here to see 2022 Chronicle of Higher Ed article on Dr. Marshall
• Click here to see external reviews by outside scholars of Dr. Marshall’s work
• Click here to see Dean Miller letter denying merit pay to Dr. Marshall

As to evidence of racism at UW-Tacoma, see a 2016 report and a 2017 climate survey that were sent to Chancellor Mark Pagano, and the declarations of Dr. Chris Knaus, Investigator Kimi Ginn, and two declarations from Dr. Melissa Lavitt.  Also, there is a declaration from Expert witness Leah Hollis, EdD regarding bullying in academia. 

• Click here to see 2016 report on racism at UW-Tacoma
• Click here to declaration of Dr. Chris Knaus
• Click here to see 2017 UW-Tacoma Faculty of Color Climate Survey in draft
• Click here to see Investigator Kimi Ginn’s declaration
• Click here to see Dr. Melissa Lavitt’s 2020 declaration
• Click here to see Dr. Melissa Lavitt’s 2021 declaration
• Click here to see Dr. Leah Hollis’ expert opinion on bullying

The Tenure Process

As to the process and procedures applied to those seeking tenure and promotion, Attorney/UW Professor Mike Townsend provided a good lay person explanation as to what should happen.  His testimony is summarized here.

Plaintiff’s witness on the ins and outs of the Faculty Code is attorney and professor Mike Townsend, who as Secretary of the Faculty Senate, provides advice to the faculty and to the administration, and acts as sort of a librarian chronicling past actions to help guide faculty and the administration with decision-making today. See Townsend Dep. at 1-14. He doesn’t represent individuals or the University in his job. Id. at 33-34.

Dr. Townsend states that the Faculty Code is treated as binding on faculty and administration. Id. at 14:4-18. When pointed to ¶ 24-32 of the Code, which provides that “In accord with the University’s expressed commitment to excellence and equity, any contributions in scholarship and research, teaching, and service that address diversity and equal opportunity shall be included and considered among the professional and scholarly qualifications for appointment and promotion outlined below.” He noted that this is an important section of the Code.  Id. at 18:6-20:20.

Dr. Marshall’s NIH research grant addressed issues of diversity.

Dr. Townsend also confirmed that appointment to the rank of associate professor requires a record of substantial success in teaching and/or research and that both teaching and research are required, “except that in unusual cases an outstanding record in one of these activities may be considered sufficient.” Id. at 23:3-18. See also, 09/24/21 Purdy SJ Dec., Ex. B at ¶ 24-34 (see below).

• Click here to see excerpts from deposition of Attorney/UW Professor Mike Townsend

Research

As to the quality of Dr. Marshall’s research, see the redacted opinions of four distinguished independent external evaluators (typically, and in this case, only the SWCJ voting faculty and management who are voting on tenure and promotion get to see these external evaluations so there is a risk that the content of the opinions will be misstated in public documents.

• Click here to see July 10, 2020, letter from Marcie Lazzari to external reviewer stating that UW will keep the external evaluator’s opinion confidential unless ordered to produce to the plaintiff by a court
• Click here to see Court Order requiring UW to produce four external reviews of Dr. Marshall’s scholarship redacting the names

On September 8, 2020, External Reviewer No. 1 says it all: “The quality of her work is outstanding.” Id. at #12955. No. 1 also noted that she publishes at a high rate in “impactful journals, and states, “With unwavering certainty, Dr. Marshall will continue to be recognized for her research through publications and grants. She far exceeds other scholars who are broadly in aging and health at the same point in their careers.” Id. at #12959. No. 1 goes on to write:

What makes Dr. Marshall’s research trajectory even more impressive is the commitment that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has invested in her and her work. Any award by NIH indicates that Dr. Marshall is recognized as an excellent researcher with an agenda that is and will continue to make a difference, and in her case, in the lives of older adults. To receive a K0l award followed by a Loan Repayment Award followed by an Administrative Supplement is no small feat. It is quite extraordinary. It takes focus, commitment, critical thinking and a solid research plan to even be considered let alone be awarded funding . . . it is widely recognized and accepted that the research and training associated with the grant takes priority over all other responsibilities as evidenced by her scholarship record.

In addition to her impressive funding record, Dr. Marshall has disseminated her research broadly at 13 conferences in her time at the University of Washington Tacoma which demonstrates her interdisciplinary focus, at gerontological, public health, and social work conferences. Id. at #12955-56.

External Reviewer No. 2 also writes a glowing evaluation of Dr. Marshall’s work noting that, “Dr. Marshall’s program of research is noteworthy for highlighting personal, interpersonal, and structural factors that collectively influence health and well-being. Her focus on older Black adults is especially appropriate given their heightened and lifelong exposures to environmental circumstances and psychosocial stressors (e.g., higher rates of poverty, discrimination, reduced access to care) that are significant risks for poor physical and mental health outcomes.” Id. at #12957. No. 2 also notes that,

Dr. Marshall’s research is distinctive from typical research on health disparities in that her work seeks to understand both proximal and distal factors associated with adverse health outcomes and identify the causal pathways that link behavioral, social, and structural determinants of health. Doing so, effectively re-conceptualizes health disparities as health inequities (i.e., avoidable and unjust inequalities) and underscores the systemic and structural features and circumstances that produce and maintain poor health and adverse health outcomes among socially disadvantaged groups.

Id. at #12958. No. 2 writes, “It is particularly noteworthy that she stands out as one of few scholars from a school of social work to be awarded a K Award. In addition, she has been accorded the distinction of being selected an Early Career Reviewer for the Social Sciences and Population Study Section of the National Institute on Aging.” Id. at #12958.

On August 17, 2020, External Reviewer No. 3 wrote, “Dr. Marshall’s [] quantity and quality of work place her in the top 10-15% of Assistant Professors in gerontology across the social and behavioral sciences. Her record is similar to those of Assistant Professors at research intensive universities who are promoted to Associate Professor with tenure.”

On August 16, 2020, External Reviewer No. 4 wrote, “Dr. Marshall has advanced scholarship on the intersection between aging, ethnicity, financial equity, and mental health, an area that is contemporary and much needed in gerontological research I know many young scholars who have applied for K01 awards, Dr. Marshall . . . is the only one I am aware of who successfully obtained this prestigious award.” Id. at #12964. No. 4 also writes, “She is the sole author of a paper published in Social Work, the most widely-disseminated journal in social work that reaches thousands of practitioners and academicians. She also is the first author of nine publications. Her scholarship has been broadly distributed in well-known journals that should target those who can benefit most from her research.” Id. at #12964-5.

• Click here to see evaluation by External Evaluator No. 1
• Click here to see evaluation by External Evaluator No. 2
• Click here to see evaluation by External Evaluator No. 3
• Click here to see evaluation by External Evaluator No. 4

Teaching

As to the quality of Dr. Marshall’s teaching, see the four reviews in her tenure and promotion file attesting to her teaching skill performed by UW-Tacoma qualified faculty.

• Click here to see 2017 peer review and declaration of Professor Julia Aguirre
• Click here to see 2018 and 2019 colleague review and declaration of Professor Beth Kalikoff
• Click here to see 2019 peer review of Professor Deidre Raynor

The following are some of the documents submitted to the Court by Dr. Marshall in pre-trial proceedings. 

• Click here to see plaintiff’s response to UW-Tacoma’s motion to dismiss the Case
• Click here to see declaration of former UW-Tacoma Professor Sarah Hampson
• Click here to see UW UCIRO discrimination Investigation and testimony of Investigator Beth Louie 
• Click here to see Promotion and Tenure documents considered by faculty and management
• Excerpts from Furman Dep.
• Excerpts from Emlet Dep.

The lawsuit produced evidence that white management uses “collegiality” and “fit,” which is often code to support discrimination.  The following is from plaintiff’s response  (at pages 17-18) to defendants’ motion for summary judgment above.

Good Fit And Collegiality–taken from plaintiff’s response (see above)

Being a “good fit” and “collegiality” are codes for discrimination and are direct evidence of discriminatory intent. “Coded language includes statements about collegiality and fit; these are usually applied within a context of questioning whether a potential hire or candidate for tenure/promotion is a good ‘fit’ within a department.” Knaus Dec. at ¶ 10; 101120 Lavitt Dec. at ¶ 39 (“fit” is often code for policies that perpetuate bias and reduce the likelihood of hiring diverse faculty). “The UW, and UW-Tacoma . . . have instituted implicit bias training for faculty that specifically cautions faculty and administrators from using such coded language in considering candidates, but the use of such remains commonplace.” Knaus Dec. at ¶ 10.

In October 2018, during a special meeting called by Dr. Young and the SWCJ faculty, excluding Dr. Marshall, to discuss the reappointment policies and practice following Jill Purdy’s overruling of SWCJ faculty’s recommendation to not grant reappointment to Dr. Marshall. Jill Purdy suggested to the white faculty present that the SWCJ faculty should “create policies with criteria to assess collegiality. 10/11/20 Lavitt Dec. at ¶¶37-39; 10/7/21 Lavitt 1^st Supp. Dec. at ¶¶ 2-3. Purdy admitted this to UCIRO Investigator Beth Louie that she told the white faculty it’s “important for the department to develop standards of collegiality so this doesn’t happen.”  Louie Dep. at 94-95:3.

SWCJ Tenured Faculty Rich Furman admitted to attending the October 2018 meeting [with Jill Purdy] but denied that Jill Purdy had talked about “collegiality” or “good fit.”  Furman Dep. at 10:5-13:17.  Similarly, SWCJ Full Professor Charles Emlet denied that Purdy had discussed “collegiality” or “good fit” with the SWCJ faculty. Emlet Dep. at 30:22-31:14 (no, not to my recollection).

Jill Purdy is not the only manager to make a statement showing her discriminatory predilections. In another discussion with Dr. Lavitt involving hiring more persons of color, Chancellor Pagano said to Vice Chancellor Lavitt, “why can’t we find a good one?”  Dr. Lavitt took that to mean a good person of color. 10/7/21 Lavitt 1^st Supp. Dec., ¶ 6.

As to Diane Young, Purdy also told Louie that she had “not seen or heard anything from Diane Young that is overtly racist.”  Louie Dep. at 84:17-24. The implication being that Diane Young’s racism is not out in the open.

UW-Tacoma

The following documents have been submitted by UW-Tacoma in pre-trial proceedings in an effort to have the case dismissed before trial. 

• Click here to see UW-Tacoma’s motion to dismiss
• Click here to see declaration of former Director of School of Social Work and Criminal Justice Diane Young
• Click here to see declaration of former Vice Chancellor Jill Purdy
• Click here to see declaration of former Chancellor Mark Pagano

A jury trial will be set in Pierce County Superior Court. 

December 20, 2022

Yakima, WA

Today, after a two and a half week trial, a Yakima County jury found that DSHS management at the Yakima Valley School, retaliated against Ms. Hyde beginning in 2015 because management believed that Ms. Hyde had filed a whistleblower claim against her supervisor for doing her tax business during work hours at work.  Under Washington law, a state employee is protected from whistleblower retaliation so long as the employer “perceives” that she is the whistleblower even if she is not. Ms. Hyde was not the whistleblower.

At trial, Ms. Hyde presented evidence that Superintendent Tammy Winegar was behind the negative treatment, which included negative performance evaluations, removal from her position and relocation to another building far from her co-workers with no assigned work. 

Ms. Hyde endured harassment on almost a daily basis until she could take it no more, and she quit in January 2019.  The jury awarded her lost wages of $101,260, lost retirement of $580,683, and emotional harm damages of $1,240,000. 

Jack Sheridan, Hyde’s attorney, stated, “Dawne suffered for years at work owing to the retaliation and the reality that no one in management would raise a finger to stop it, but at trial, the jury listened and understood and now she is vindicated.” 

Click here to see special jury verdict form

Click here to see judgment on jury verdict

Click here to see HYDE Complaint

Click here to see positive performance evaluation signed by Winegar before whistleblower anonymous filing

Click here to see State Auditor’s report

Click here to see letter pulling Hyde from job signed by Winegar after whistleblower anonymous filing is closed

Click here to see Judge Tutsch’s final jury instructions in Hyde v. State

Click here to see Yakima Herald article

Many Black plaintiffs suing in the civil forum for damages owing to negligence or discrimination, or malpractice find that their access to the justice is problematic.  Nationwide, Black civil plaintiffs just don’t get the same justice as white plaintiffs, especially if the defendant is white.  Our Supreme Court has addressed this disparity in criminal cases regarding Black defendants, but now the Supreme Court has broadened those protections to protect Black plaintiffs in civil cases so they may have the same access to justice as white plaintiffs.

On October 20, 2022, our Supreme Court issued its opinion in Henderson v. Thompson, 200 Wash. 2d 417, 421, 518 P.3d 1011, 1016 (2022), which is perhaps the most important Supreme Court decision in a decade for civil plaintiffs, because it addresses racism in the courtroom in a civil case: “[w]hether explicit or implicit, purposeful or unconscious, racial bias has no place in a system of justice. If racial bias is a factor in the decision of a judge or jury, that decision does not achieve substantial justice, and it must be reversed.” Id. 

In Henderson, the plaintiff was Black and the defendant was white. At the request of the the plaintiff, the Supreme Court overturned a jury verdict for plaintiff that was diminished by racism in the courtroom: the plaintiff received a small verdict in a civil case even though the evidence supported a larger verdict, and “because [of] defense counsel’s comments during cross-examination and closing arguments that  drew on racial stereotypes, along with the jury’s astonishingly small award and the request to remove Henderson from the courtroom, [which] support the conclusion that appeals to racial bias affected the verdict. Id. at 434. In addition, the trial judge was removed from presiding over the second trial upon remand based on their conduct. Id. at 440. 

Henderson speaks to judges and lawyers guiding them on  how to address, post-trial, racism that occurred in the courtroom during trial. “Henderson moved for a new trial or additur on the ground that the repeated appeals to racial bias affected the verdict, yet the trial court did not even grant an evidentiary hearing on that motion.” Id. at 422.

Relying on State v. Berhe, 193 Wash.2d 647, 665, 444 P.3d 1172 (2019), a criminal case, the Supreme Court announced procedures for the trial courts to use post-trial when race could have affected the jury’s verdict. They are: 

• First, the plaintiff, post-trial, must present a prima facie case showing that an objective observer (one who is aware that implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have influenced jury verdicts in Washington State) could view race as a factor in the verdict.
• Second the trial court must hold a hearing on a new trial motion when the proponent makes a prima facie showing that this objective observer could view race as a factor in the verdict, regardless of whether intentional misconduct has been shown or the court believes there is another explanation.
• Third, at that hearing, the party seeking to preserve the verdict bears the burden to prove that race was not a factor.
• Fourth, if that burden is not met, the court must conclude that substantial justice has not been done and order a new trial. CR 59(a)(9).

Id. at 422–23 (quotation marks omitted).

Henderson also admonishes lawyers and judges to “actively work to prevent racism before it occurs.” Id. at 446.

There is hope for change.

Click here to see Henderson

Click here to see (State v. Bagby) a new criminal case addressing racism by prosecutor

In 2020, in an open letter to judges and lawyers, our Supreme Court faced racism in the courtroom and asked attorneys and judges to do better.

We must recognize that systemic racial injustice against black Americans is not an omnipresent specter that will inevitably persist. It is the collective product of each of our individual actions—every action, every day. It is only by carefully reflecting on our actions, taking individual responsibility for them, and constantly striving for better that we can address the shameful legacy we inherit. We call on every member of our legal community to reflect on this moment and ask ourselves how we may work together to eradicate racism.

The Court pointed a finger at attorneys and judges.

 The legal community must recognize that we all bear responsibility for this on-going injustice, and that we are capable of taking steps to address it, if only we have the courage and the will. The injustice still plaguing our country has its roots in the individual and collective actions of many, and it cannot be addressed without the individual and collective actions of us all.

As judges, we must recognize the role we have played in devaluing black lives.

In knowing that unrelenting racism exists today the Supreme Court is asking the judges and attorneys everywhere to do better.

In a straight line from this letter, the Supreme Court recently recognized in criminal cases addressing the issue of whether a police encounter with a person of color was in fact a seizure.  The Court noted:

an objective observer is aware that implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in disproportionate police contacts, investigative seizures, and uses of force against Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) in Washington.

State v. Sum, No. 99730-6, 2022 WL 2071560, at *1 (Wash. June 9, 2022).

The Court faced head-on the reality of mistreatment in the courts. “Historically, many of this court’s opinions concerning the civil rights and lived experiences of BIPOC have been deplorable.” Id. at *5.

The Court recognized that race and ethnicity are always relevant in addressing seizure issues: “we hold that an allegedly seized person’s race and ethnicity are relevant to the question of whether they were seized by law enforcement for purposes of article I, section 7.”  Id.

The evolution of the judicial mind, must continue along that straight line and allow for introspection as to whether this forum will overcome that long history of discrimination in the courts or fail again.  Judges and attorneys must recognize that in every judicial decision race discrimination and the potential for unfair treatment of a Black and other litigant of color exists in every courthouse and affirm that this evil specter will not be allowed in this judicial process.

Click here to see State Supreme Court open letter

Click here to see State v. Sum

On September 1, 2022, the Honorable Ken Schubert signed a judgment against the State of Washington ending a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit filed in King County.  Trooper C. was a witness in Trooper Ryan Santhuff’s whistleblower lawsuit, and he testified at the Santhuff trial and was driven out of the Aviation group as a result.  Had the State not offered a judgment, the case was set to go to trial on September 6, 2022. Trooper C. continues to work as a trooper in the Washington State Patrol.

Today, Petitioner Abdikarim Karrani filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of his removal from a JetBlue flight after a white flight attendant pushed Mr. Karrani and then said he pushed her. 

After the plane landed, the pilot did no meaningful investigation even though other passengers said the flight attendant was lying, and even though a police officer, who interviewed Mr. Karrani, the flight crew, and other passengers testified he saw no evidence of assault.  The police officer removed Mr. Karrani at the request of the pilot and the flight attendant, because the flight attendant was afraid of Mr. Karrani. 

In another case in Los Angeles, the same flight attendant falsely claimed that a Black American woman pushed her.   The passenger was removed because the flight attendant said she would not fly unless the passenger was removed.   

Here are some of the holding by U.S. circuit courts in America:

• An air carrier’s decisions to refuse transport are not subject to liability unless the decision is arbitrary or capricious (the law does not say this; judges made this up as a barrier to discrimination claims).
• Review of a decision to refuse transport is restricted to what information was actually known by the decisionmaker at the time of the decision. The test is not what the Captain reasonably should have known (the law does not say this; judges made this up as a barrier to discrimination claims).
• The Captain (or other decisionmaker) is entitled to accept at face value the representations made to him by other air carrier employees. Thus, even mistaken decisions are protected as long as they are not arbitrary or capricious (the law does not say this; judges made this up as a barrier to discrimination claims).
• The biases of a non-decisionmaker may not be attributed to the decisionmakers (the law does not say this; judges made this up as a barrier to discrimination claims).
• The jury must be instructed that the Captain has the power to refuse transport because transport of a passenger “might be inimical to safety” unless that decision was arbitrary or capricious (this is the language of the law, but it has nothing to do with claims of discrimination).

The circuit courts say that the pilots don’t have to investigate before removing a passenger—they just have to hear a lie from a crewmember—and even if a crew member is a bigot the court won’t look at the crewmember’s bias in the decision-making process.  Jack Sheridan said, “The Supreme Court needs to review this, because as it stands, Black Americans lose their civil rights once they board a plane, and they are unprotected against removal based on false statements by biased and racist crew members.”

Click here to see Karrani Petition

Click here to see Appendix to petition