Karl Kersteter, V. Concrete School District
82511-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2022Background
- Kersteter worked as Concrete School District’s transportation supervisor (2006–2017) under successive written contracts that labeled the position part-time (.5 to .71 FTE) though he routinely worked ~43 hours/week.
- He signed each written part‑time contract (some years requesting more time orally), was paid the contract salary and received pension credits based on those contracts and service months.
- Upon his retirement, the district reclassified the position to full‑time and raised the successor’s salary; Kersteter then sued alleging misclassification and unjust enrichment and sought wage/pension damages.
- He amended his complaint to allege unjust enrichment/quantum meruit, violation of RCW 49.44.170 (misclassification to avoid employment‑based benefits), and attorney fees under the wage statute; earlier wage claims under other Title 49 chapters were dropped.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the district on unjust enrichment and on damages under RCW 49.44.170 (finding "employment‑based benefits" does not include wages); Kersteter voluntarily dismissed remaining claims and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 49.44.170 covers wages (salary) and related pension losses | RCW 49.44.170 covers lost wages and pension benefits from misclassification; damages include difference between part‑time pay and full‑time pay | The statute targets employment‑based benefits (health, retirement eligibility, leave), not wages; Kersteter was paid contract wages and received service credit | Employment‑based benefits do not include wages; statute does not provide wage/pension remedy — dismissal affirmed |
| Whether unjust enrichment/quantum meruit is available despite written contracts | Part‑time written contracts do not address full‑time work; unjust enrichment recovery is appropriate for excess hours worked | An express, valid written contract governs the parties’ rights; unjust enrichment is barred where an express contract exists | Express contract precludes unjust enrichment/quantum meruit; summary judgment for defendant affirmed |
| Entitlement to attorney fees under RCW 49.48.030 | If successful on wage claim, plaintiff sought attorney fees | District opposed fees because no wage recovery | No fee award; Kersteter did not recover wages so fees not available |
| Whether RCW 49.44.170 requires employer to knowingly misclassify employees | Statute need not require employer knowledge to be violated | Defendant argued knowledge or intent relevant but statutory text controls | Court resolved case on statutory scope (benefits vs wages) and did not rely on a knowledge requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Lybbert v. Grant County, 141 Wn.2d 29 (summary judgment standard)
- Associated Press v. Wash. State Legislature, 194 Wn.2d 915 (statutory interpretation de novo)
- State v. Kintz, 169 Wn.2d 537 (use of dictionary definitions for nontechnical statutory terms)
- Mader v. Health Care Auth., 149 Wn.2d 458 (context for 2002 legislation addressing benefits eligibility)
- Young v. Young, 164 Wn.2d 477 (definition and purpose of unjust enrichment)
- MacDonald v. Hayner, 43 Wn. App. 81 (express contract bars unjust enrichment)