Tracy Jonassen v. Port of Seattle
685 F. App'x 571
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jonassen, employed by Port of Seattle since 2004, was reassigned from the IWTP to the Boiler Room after disciplinary incidents in late 2007; parties settled on January 4, 2008, and the Port sent a confirming letter January 7, 2008.
- Employment governed by a CBA that permits discipline only for cause and requires grievance procedures to challenge disciplinary actions.
- Jonassen sued the Port on January 7, 2011, alleging False Claims Act retaliation and breach of the employee handbook; the FCA claim was previously affirmed against him, and the handbook claim was remanded.
- On remand the district court granted summary judgment for the Port; the court below relied on §301 LMRA preemption (later acknowledged as inapplicable to political subdivisions), but the Ninth Circuit affirmed on alternative grounds.
- The Ninth Circuit held Jonassen’s handbook breach claim failed because (1) the handbook promises were not specific commitments to particular treatment, (2) Jonassen offered no admissible evidence of reliance, (3) the claim is time‑barred by the three‑year statute of limitations, and (4) he failed to exhaust the CBA grievance procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Port handbook created enforceable promises of specific treatment | Jonassen argued handbook/HR policies prohibited retaliation and promised investigations, creating enforceable commitments | Port argued policy language was indefinite, not promising specific remedies or procedures | Held: Policies were too indefinite to create enforceable promises of specific treatment |
| Whether Jonassen established reliance on handbook promises | Jonassen claimed he relied on handbook protections | Port attacked the evidentiary basis; Jonassen submitted an unsigned declaration the court excluded | Held: No admissible evidence of reliance; reliance element fails |
| Whether the claim is time‑barred | Jonassen argued accrual date was later (January 7, 2008 letter) | Port argued accrual was when reassignment was acknowledged or when settlement occurred, more than three years before suit | Held: Claim accrued by Dec 28, 2007 or Jan 4, 2008; suit filed Jan 7, 2011 is untimely under the 3‑year rule |
| Whether CBA grievance procedures must be exhausted | Jonassen sought to sue in court for retaliation/harassment | Port argued CBA provides exclusive remedy and grievance exhaustion is required; Washington law bars suits for discipline short of termination without using CBA remedies | Held: Jonassen failed to exhaust CBA grievance procedures; claim barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219 (employees may enforce handbook promises of specific treatment in specific situations)
- Korslund v. DynCorp Tri‑Cities Servs., Inc., 156 Wash.2d 168 (policy language must be concrete to create enforceable promises)
- DePhillips v. Zolt Constr. Co., 136 Wash.2d 26 (three‑year statute of limitations applies to handbook breach claims)
- Woodbury v. City of Seattle, 172 Wash.App. 747 (must exhaust CBA grievance procedures; no judicial claim for discipline less than termination)
- Canada v. Blain’s Helicopters, Inc., 831 F.2d 920 (unauthenticated or improperly supported declarations cannot create a genuine dispute at summary judgment)