Patterson v. State, Department of Health & Welfare
256 P.3d 718
Idaho2011Background
- Patterson sued the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare (IDHW) alleging IHRA retaliation and IPPEA constructive discharge.
- IDHW had an internal policy discouraging intra-office relationships; Patterson alleged supervisor Warren and colleague Stiles had an affair with perceived preferential treatment.
- Patterson complained starting 2004 about the affair and alleged preferential treatment; investigations were conducted and Warren admitted the relationship in 2004–2005.
- In 2005–2006 Patterson claimed ongoing retaliation and unequal resources; no sustained new investigation result.
- Patterson resigned March 16, 2007, with resignation effective March 30, 2007; she did not return to work thereafter.
- The district court granted summary judgment, finding IPPEA claim time-barred and IHRA claim not showing protected activity; Patterson timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IPPEA claim time-barred | Patterson argues IDHW waived statute defense and claim timely | IDHW raised limitations defense and accrual is March 16, 2007 | IPPEA claim time-barred; accrual on March 16, 2007. |
| Protected activity under IHRA | Patterson contends her complaints about affair/favoritism were protected | IDHW argues no reasonable belief of violation of IHRA Title VII standards | No protected activity; belief not objectively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waterman v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 146 Idaho 667, 201 P.3d 640 (Idaho Supreme Court 2009) (constructive discharge standard; accumulation of working conditions")
- Draper v. Coeur Rochester, Inc., 147 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 1998) (constructive discharge accrual; quitting date controls)
- Flaherty v. Metromail Corp., 235 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000) (constructive discharge accrual when definite notice given)
- Luce v. Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 303 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2002) (protected activity; objective reasonableness standard)
- Drinkwater v. Union Carbide Corp., 904 F.2d 853 (3d Cir. 1990) (retaliation claim allowed when good faith belief existed; reliance on existing law)
- Fuhriman v. State, Dep't of Transp., 143 Idaho 800, 153 P.3d 480 (Idaho Supreme Court 2007) (affirmative defenses timing; raised before trial)
- Bluestone v. Mathewson, 103 Idaho 453, 649 P.2d 1209 (Idaho Supreme Court 1982) (affirmative defenses raised in summary; not waived)
- DeCintio v. Westchester County Med. Ctr., 807 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1986) (paramour favoritism cases; limits to hostile environment theory)