431 P.3d 1018
Wash. Ct. App.2018Background
- Peiffer worked as a slab-saw operator for Pro-Cut for many years and quit on June 8, 2012 after supervisors repeatedly altered his time cards and reduced his reported hours.
- He filed a wage complaint with the Washington Department of Labor & Industries (DLI) on July 3, 2012; DLI investigated for ~14 months, sent periodic 60‑day extension letters to Peiffer (but not to Pro-Cut), and closed the file after Peiffer sued in November 2013.
- Peiffer sued Pro-Cut and others in November 2013 for unpaid wages (seeking back pay, interest), and constructive wrongful termination in violation of public policy; defendants later stipulated to a lower wage amount but not the larger amount Peiffer sought based on tolling.
- At bench trial the court awarded unpaid wages (back to July 2009), prejudgment interest, attorney fees and costs, denied double damages on the theory Peiffer had "knowingly submitted" to withholding, and awarded an $8,784 tax‑offset for lump‑sum tax consequences.
- On appeal the court (Division III) addressed: whether RCW 49.48.083(5) tolls the statute of limitations while DLI investigates even when the employee files suit; entitlement to attorney fees/costs; authority to award a tax‑offset; dismissal of the constructive wrongful termination claim; and whether Peiffer knowingly submitted to withholding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Peiffer) | Defendant's Argument (Pro-Cut) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 49.48.083(5) tolls the civil statute of limitations during a DLI investigation when the employee files suit before DLI issues a final citation | Tolling begins when Peiffer filed the DLI complaint and continues until DLI resolves the complaint; filing suit does not cut off tolling | Tolling should not protect employees who abandon or frustrate the investigation by suing; tolling should end if employee does not let DLI finish its process | Tolling applies: statute of limitations tolled from filing of DLI complaint until DLI resolution or written notice; filing suit while investigation is pending does not by itself end tolling (affirmed) |
| Entitlement to reasonable attorney fees and costs under RCW 49.48.030 when recovery exceeds employer's admitted amount | Because tolling permitted a larger recovery than defendants admitted, Peiffer is entitled to reasonable fees and costs | If tolling did not apply, recovery would equal the admitted amount and fees would be barred | Peiffer entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs (affirmed) |
| Whether trial court had statutory authority to award a lump‑sum offset for increased federal tax liability caused by receiving back wages as a lump sum | Such an offset is recoverable as part of "wages" or remedial relief to make plaintiff whole | No statute in Title 49 authorizes tax‑consequence offsets; Blaney’s tax‑offset rationale is limited to WLAD because of unique remedial language | Trial court erred to award $8,784 tax offset; reversed (tax offset vacated) |
| Whether dismissal of Peiffer's constructive wrongful termination claim at close of plaintiff's case was proper; and whether Peiffer "knowingly submitted" to wage withholding (affecting double damages under RCW 49.52.070) | Evidence established deliberate time‑card alterations, willful withholding, repeated complaints, intolerable conditions forcing resignation — sufficient to submit to the factfinder; Peiffer did not knowingly submit to withholding | Employer argued no prima facie proof of constructive discharge or public‑policy causation; plaintiff strategically delayed DLI | Court reversed dismissal: evidence sufficed for constructive wrongful termination; further, findings did not support conclusion that Peiffer knowingly submitted to withholding, so double damages are available; remand for new trial on constructive discharge and for double damages determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Blaney v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Dist. No. 160, 151 Wn.2d 203 (2004) (WLAD authorizes equitable tax‑offset because of its "any other appropriate remedy" language)
- Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152 (1998) (legislative intent of wage statutes to assure payment of earned wages)
- Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 184 Wn.2d 252 (2015) (elements and narrow scope of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy)
- Chelius v. Questar Microsystems, Inc., 107 Wn. App. 678 (2001) (to "knowingly submit" to wage withholding an employee must deliberately defer to employer the decision whether payment will ever be made)