Seattle City Light, Respondent, v. Aaron Swanson, Appellant, 373 P.3d 342

Background

Aaron Swanson, a Seattle City Light lineworker apprentice, reported that instructor Ronald Allen solicited and accepted bottles of alcohol from apprentices in exchange for passing an oral test; SCL investigated and suspended Allen for 20 workdays.
After Swanson reported Allen (to HR, SEEC, and JATC), Allen allegedly lobbied co-workers and crew chiefs to downgrade Swanson’s evaluations and made hostile remarks about him; coworkers posted a fake Seattle Times comment impersonating Swanson.
Swanson filed an administrative whistleblower retaliation complaint under Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) and RCW chapter 42.41; an ALJ found Allen’s conduct (including the impersonating comment) constituted prohibited retaliation under RCW 42.41.020(3)(b) and ordered six-month suspension and attorney fees.
The City petitioned for judicial review; the superior court reversed the ALJ, reasoning Seattle’s then-existing SMC defined “retaliatory action” more narrowly (only adverse changes in employment terms) and thus precluded state-law protection for supervisor-encouraged hostile coworker actions.
The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and held the former SMC did not meet the intent of the state Whistleblower Protection Act because it omitted protection for hostile coworker actions encouraged by supervisors; substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s findings that Allen encouraged the impersonation and occupied a secondary supervisory role.
Result: Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, affirmed the ALJ’s decision (finding retaliation under RCW 42.41), and remanded to the ALJ to determine attorney fees and costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Seattle’s former SMC precluded application of RCW 42.41’s broader definition of "retaliatory action"	Swanson: former SMC failed to meet state-law intent because it omitted protection for hostile coworker actions encouraged by supervisors, so RCW 42.41 applies	City: former SMC implements state law and thus the narrower municipal definition governs, excluding hostile coworker actions	Held: former SMC did not meet intent of RCW 42.41; state-law definition applies
Whether impersonation/online comment constituted retaliatory "hostile action" encouraged by a supervisor	Swanson: comment contained insider info, was hostile, and was encouraged or committed by Allen	City: no substantial evidence that an SCL employee posted it, that Allen encouraged it, or that Allen was a supervisor when it occurred	Held: substantial evidence supports that an SCL employee or Allen posted/encouraged the comment and Allen had secondary supervisory influence; constitutes retaliatory action under RCW 42.41
Standard of review for ALJ factual findings and statutory interpretation	Swanson: ALJ’s factual findings entitled to deference; statutory interpretation governed by state law and plain meaning	City: challenges ALJ’s reliance on state statute and contends factual findings lack substantial evidence	Held: statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; ALJ’s factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence and were supported
Remedy and further proceedings	Swanson: ALJ’s remedies (suspension of Allen; attorney fees) appropriate under RCW 42.41	City: superior court order should stand, reversing ALJ	Held: affirmed ALJ’s liability determination; remanded to ALJ to calculate attorney fees and costs

Key Cases Cited

Tapper v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 122 Wn.2d 397 (discussing standard of review under WAPA)
Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 151 Wn.2d 568 (defining substantial evidence review standard)
City of Spokane v. Rothwell, 166 Wn.2d 872 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass'n, 169 Wn.2d 516 (plain meaning rule in statutory construction)
Ellensburg Cement Prods., Inc. v. Kittitas County, 179 Wn.2d 737 (municipal ordinance interpretation follows statutory rules)
Broughton Lumber Co. v. BNSF Ry., 174 Wn.2d 619 (avoid strained interpretations producing unlikely consequences)
Woodbury v. City of Seattle, 172 Wn. App. 747 (distinguished; addressed procedural conformity of city procedures with state law)