Leishman v. Washington Attorney General's Office
2:20-cv-00861
W.D. Wash.Oct 31, 2023Background:
- In July 2015 Roger Leishman was hired by the Washington Attorney General’s Office as chief legal advisor to Western Washington University; he disclosed serious mental-health conditions and sought workplace accommodations which were denied.
- In early 2016 Leishman filed a sexual-orientation discrimination complaint; shortly after he was placed on home assignment and the AG’s Office retained Ogden Murphy Wallace to investigate.
- Ogden Murphy’s investigator interviewed Leishman (outside his retained counsel), produced a report, and the AG’s Office terminated Leishman on May 9, 2016 (effective June 1, 2016); Leishman later received the investigative report.
- Leishman submitted a 2016 Tort Claim and entered a settlement releasing claims described on that form; he thereafter pursued PRA requests and filed bar/ethics complaints and additional state litigation.
- Leishman filed this federal suit (Third Am. Compl. Oct. 3, 2022) asserting WLAD, Section 1983 (petition, equal protection, due process), Section 1985 conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and emotional-distress claims; State Defendants moved to dismiss.
- The district court granted the motion: Section 1985 and misrepresentation claims dismissed with prejudice; most other claims dismissed without prejudice as untimely or inadequately pleaded; leave to move to amend conditionally.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of WLAD employment/discrimination claims | Leishman contends discovery rule and equitable tolling delay accrual; some claims arise from a continuing hostile-work environment | WLAD imposes a 3-year limitations period for discrete acts; discovery rule does not save hostile-work-environment accrual; equitable tolling not pleaded with particularity | WLAD claims arising from employment were time-barred (filed Apr 2020, outside 3-year limit); many post-termination WLAD allegations also inadequately pleaded | |
| §1983 First Amendment (right to petition/retaliation) | Petitioning activity (ethics complaints, PRA, bar complaints) is protected and State Defendants retaliated or chilled his rights | Defendants concede activity is protected but argue there is no actionable right to any particular government response and no facts showing chilling or causal link | Claim dismissed for failure to plausibly allege chilling or causal connection | |
| §1983 Equal Protection | Leishman alleges discrimination based on sexual orientation and disability | Defendants argue claim is governed by 3-year limitations and mirrors WLAD employment claims; insufficient factual allegations of discriminatory intent post-termination | Claim time-barred as to employment-related acts and otherwise fails for lack of pleading of discriminatory intent | |
| §1983 Due Process (name-clearing/publication) | Ogden Murphy report contained stigmatizing falsehoods placed in personnel file and publicly disclosed without a name-clearing hearing | Defendants argue claim is governed by a 3-year limitations period and any publication effectively occurred at termination | Court applies Cox v. Roskelley: placement in personnel file in a PRA-state triggers accrual at termination; claim is time-barred | |
| §1985 Conspiracy | Alleged coordinated “gaslighting” and secret files to unlawfully terminate and stigmatize him | Defendants say allegations are conclusory and lack the particularity and class-based animus required under §1985(3) | Dismissed with prejudice for failure to plead an agreement, concerted action, specific acts in furtherance, or class-based invidious animus | |
| Negligent misrepresentation | AG Office misrepresented scope/purpose of investigation; Leishman relied to his detriment | Defendants contend no plausible justifiable reliance or proximate causation; claim also time-barred | Dismissed with prejudice: no allegations of reliance/proximate cause and claim is untimely | |
| Negligence and IIED/Negligent infliction of emotional distress | Leishman alleges duty/breach in supervision, investigation, and handling of workplace dispute causing severe distress | Defendants argue no specific duty pleaded, no public-policy basis to impose duty regarding workplace dispute handling, and IIED standard requires extreme outrageousness | Negligence and emotional-distress claims dismissed for failure to plead duty/breach/proximate cause and for failing to allege extreme, outrageous conduct; dismissal without leave (some claims without prejudice; misrepresentation and §1985 with prejudice) | |
| Colorado River abstention | Leishman has overlapping state litigation against at least one defendant | Defendants urge abstention due to parallel state proceedings | Court: abstention is the exception; state cases will not resolve all federal claims | Colorado River abstention declined |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard governs Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth for Iqbal/Twombly analysis)
- Antonius v. King County, 103 P.3d 729 (Wash. 2004) (WLAD accrual for discrete acts; hostile-work-environment accrual rule)
- Cox v. Roskelley, 359 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2004) (placement of stigmatizing material in personnel file in a PRA-state can constitute publication triggering due-process name-clearing right)
- Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 1999) (First Amendment chilling test: would official acts chill a person of ordinary firmness)
- Capp v. County of San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2019) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity framework)
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) (exceptional circumstances standard for federal abstention)