Clipse v. Commercial Driver Services, Inc.
189 Wash. App. 776
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Clipse obtained a WLAD discrimination judgment against Commercial Driver Services Inc. (CDS) and promissory estoppel claims were tried to a jury.
- CDS moved for summary judgment on qualification and WLAD discrimination; the trial court denied, and the case proceeded to trial.
- At trial, CDS won JMOL on double damages under RCW 49.52.050/070; the court denied JMOL on WLAD and promissory estoppel claims.
- The jury found discrimination based on disability and promissory estoppel, awarding back wages and noneconomic damages.
- The judgment reserved attorney fees and costs; Clipse’s post-judgment motion for attorney fees was struck as untimely.
- CDS cross-appealed, challenging the WLAD and promissory estoppel JMOL rulings; the court affirmed WLAD and reversed on promissory estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double damages under RCW 49.52.050/070 | Clipse seeks double damages for WLAD back wages. | CDS argues back wages are subject to double damages. | Double damages inapplicable; retrospective WLAD damages are not wages under statute. |
| WLAD discrimination JMOL viability | Clipse presented prima facie WLAD case (disability, qualification, accommodation). | CDS contends no disability, no qualified individual, or no accommodation obligation. | Court upheld denial of JMOL on WLAD; jury properly found discrimination and entitlement to damages. |
| Promissory estoppel JMOL viability | CDS promised permanent employment or assurance affecting Clipse; promissory estoppel applies. | No clear, definite promise of permanent employment was proven. | Trial court erred by denying JMOL on promissory estoppel; promissory estoppel claim reversed. |
| Attorney fees and costs timing | Motion for fees was timely; reserved language should not bar filing. | Late filing or misinterpretation of 'reserved' justifies striking the motion. | Trial court’s decision to strike late fee motion was not an abuse of discretion; no excusable neglect shown. |
| WLAD damages scope post-promissory estoppel reversal | Damages awarded under WLAD should align with WLAD theories. | Damages were permissible as WLAD back pay and noneconomic damages. | Damages remain valid under WLAD despite reversal of promissory estoppel claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hemmings v. Tidyman’s Inc., 285 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2002) (retrospective WLAD damages not subject to double damages)
- Campbell & Gwinn, LLC v. Department of Ecology, 146 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 2002) (statutory interpretation and plain language analysis)
- Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wn.2d 521 (Wash. 2003) (standard for reviewing CR 50/50 judgments; substantial evidence.)
- Havens v. C&D Plastics, Inc., 124 Wn.2d 158 (Wash. 1994) (promissory estoppel in at-will employment context; need clear promise)
- Allstot v. Edwards, 114 Wn. App. 625 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (stipulated back wages create preexisting obligation for double damages)