James Woodbury v. City Of Seattle, 74329-5

Background

James Woodbury, a Seattle Fire Department (SFD) deputy chief, filed an SEEC ethics complaint in October 2008 alleging misconduct by Lieutenant Milton Footer related to invoicing for work at Qwest Field. Footer later resigned.
Around the same time, the Mayor’s office asked SFD to cut an assistant chief position from its 2009 budget; SFD leadership decided to abrogate the deputy chief of special operations position.
Assistant chiefs (notably Nelsen, Tipler, Vickery, Hepburn) met to decide which of eleven deputy chiefs to demote; they ultimately recommended demoting Woodbury, in part because he was scheduled to rotate into the soon-to-be-abolished special operations post and because of perceived interpersonal issues.
Woodbury claimed the demotion was retaliation for his SEEC complaint and administratively challenged the decision; an ALJ dismissed the retaliation claim, the superior court affirmed, and Woodbury appealed.
The ALJ found the assistant chiefs were the decision-makers, that their deliberations were independent of Chief Dean’s remarks, and that retaliation was not a substantial factor in the demotion; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ misapplied the legal standard for retaliation (substantial factor vs. but-for)	Woodbury contends the ALJ required a but-for showing	City/ SFD argued the ALJ applied the substantial-factor standard	Court: ALJ applied correct substantial-factor standard and no error
Whether the ALJ acted arbitrarily or capriciously by failing to address Dean's knowledge of the SEEC complaint and other circumstantial evidence	Woodbury argued Dean knew of the complaint, influenced assistant chiefs, and that timing and other actions support retaliatory motive	City argued assistant chiefs were the decision-makers and did not know of or rely on Dean’s alleged conduct; those facts were immaterial to their deliberations	Court: ALJ reasonably treated assistant chiefs as decision-makers; omission of a finding on Dean’s knowledge was not reversible error
Whether the ALJ ignored material evidence (labor relations conversation, timing proximity)	Woodbury argued these facts were material circumstantial evidence of retaliation	City argued those matters did not affect assistant chiefs’ independent deliberations	Court: ALJ considered timing and deemed other matters immaterial to assistant chiefs’ decision; findings supported by record
Whether credibility findings and alleged mendacious testimony required overturning ALJ decision	Woodbury argued witnesses (esp. Dean) were dishonest and ALJ should have credited that	City asserted credibility determinations are for the trier of fact and ALJ found witnesses generally credible	Court: ALJ’s credibility assessments are entitled to deference; no basis to overturn

Key Cases Cited

Scrivener v. Clark Coll., 181 Wn.2d 439 (2014) (retaliation: substantial-factor standard)
Seattle City Light v. Swanson, 193 Wn. App. 795 (2016) (administrative law interpretations reviewed de novo)
US W. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Wash. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 86 Wn. App. 719 (1997) (adequacy, not eloquence, required in agency findings)
Campbell v. State Emp't Sec. Dep't, 180 Wn.2d 566 (2014) (standards for overturning agency decisions)
Kahn v. Salerno, 90 Wn. App. 110 (1998) (elements of whistleblower/retaliation claim)
Yakima Police Patrolmen's Ass'n v. City of Yakima, 153 Wn. App. 541 (2009) (absence of finding for burdened party equals finding against it)
Sprint Spectrum, LP v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 174 Wn. App. 645 (2013) (substantial evidence standard)
Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I, 144 Wn.2d 172 (2001) (dishonesty can be probative of liability)
Morse v. Antonellis, 149 Wn.2d 572 (2003) (credibility determinations are for the factfinder)
Heinmiller v. Dep't of Health, 127 Wn.2d 595 (1996) (agency action not arbitrary when reasonable alternative inferences exist)