419 P.3d 838
Wash.2018Background
- Cynthia Stewart was denied unemployment benefits after her employer fired her for appearing impaired at work; the ESD commissioner affirmed the denial following administrative appeals.
- Stewart filed a petition for judicial review in superior court and mailed a copy to the Employment Security Department (ESD) within 30 days, but ESD did not receive it until 31 days after the commissioner's decision.
- The superior court dismissed Stewart's petition after ESD moved to dismiss, arguing service was untimely under RCW 34.05.542 and WAC 192-04-210; the trial court found service was one day late and dismissal mandatory.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Employment Security Act (ESA) or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs the procedural service requirement for petitions for judicial review of an ESD commissioner's decision.
- The Court held the APA controls procedural rules for judicial review of the commissioner’s decisions and that service on the agency requires delivery (actual receipt) within 30 days, not mere mailing; Stewart’s service was therefore untimely.
- Because timely service is jurisdictional to invoke the superior court’s appellate jurisdiction, the Court affirmed mandatory dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ESA or APA governs procedural service for judicial review of an ESD commissioner’s decision | Stewart: ESA controls; mailing is deemed receipt by postmark so her service was timely | ESD: APA controls; service on agency requires delivery (actual receipt) within 30 days | APA governs; service requires delivery and Stewart's was one day late, so untimely |
| Whether untimely service can be waived or avoids mandatory dismissal | Stewart: ESD waived/forfeited objection by late raising | ESD: Timeliness is jurisdictional and cannot be waived; strict compliance required to invoke superior court | Timeliness is jurisdictional; noncompliance deprived court of appellate jurisdiction and mandated dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C., 146 Wash.2d 1 (statutory interpretation de novo and use of related statutes to determine legislative intent)
- Tapper v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 122 Wash.2d 397 (APA governs judicial review of ESD commissioner's decisions)
- City of Seattle v. Pub. Emp't Relations Comm'n, 116 Wash.2d 923 (strict compliance with statutory appeal deadlines to invoke superior court review)
- Conom v. Snohomish County, 155 Wash.2d 154 (court must dismiss when lacking jurisdiction)
- Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (clarifies difference between jurisdictional rules and claim-processing rules; legislative intent controls whether a rule is jurisdictional)