Woodbury v. City of Seattle
172 Wash. App. 747
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Woodbury, a Seattle Fire Department deputy chief, filed a whistle-blower complaint in 2008 regarding unbilled fireguard services (~$200,000).
- Shortly before, the department offered role abrogations to offset budget cuts; Woodbury was later informed he’d be demoted to battalion chief for January 2009.
- Woodbury first pursued a mayoral-initiated whistle-blower process and then sued Seattle in superior court under SMC 4.20.860 and RCW 42.41.040.
- City moved to strike damages for emotional distress and to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing no superior court remedy exists.
- Trial court granted dismissal, ruling Woodbury had no standalone superior court claim under the whistle-blower provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do SMC 4.20.860 and RCW 42.41.040 create a superior court cause of action for whistle-blower retaliation? | Woodbury claims permissive terms allow direct judicial review. | Statutes provide administrative relief only; no express cause of action in superior court. | No cause of action in superior court; remedy is via administrative proceeding and appellate review. |
| Are emotional distress damages available under RCW 42.41.040/SMC 4.20.860? | Emotional distress damages are recoverable under the statutory remedy. | Remedies enumerated do not include emotional distress damages. | Not available under these provisions. |
| Is Woodbury limited to administrative hearing; can he pursue both administrative and superior court actions? | May pursue either administrative hearing or superior court review. | Choice is not between two actions; only the administrative route with potential appellate review. | No independent superior court route; final remedy is through administrative process with appellate review. |
| Does Woodbury have a viable common law wrongful discharge claim? | Disciplinary action could support a wrongful discharge claim. | No wrongful discharge remedy exists for actions less severe than termination; no WL/RA claim under local code. | No viable common law wrongful discharge claim; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 118 Wn.2d 46 (1991) (exclusive remedies and dismissal when not exclusive)
- Wilson v. City of Monroe, 88 Wn. App. 113 (1997) (noting exclusive remedy analysis when remedies are mixed)
- Millay v. Cam, 135 Wn.2d 193 (1998) (legislative intent inferred from similar vs. dissimilar language)
- Human Rights Comm’n v. Cheney Sch. Dist. No. 30, 97 Wn.2d 118 (1982) (enumerated relief implications for damages)
- Dot Foods, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 166 Wn.2d 912 (2009) (statutory interpretation and plain language in context)
- State v. Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596 (2005) (plain meaning of statute in statutory scheme)
- White v. State, 131 Wn.2d 1 (1997) (absence of emotional distress relief under certain statutory schemes)