Hale v. Wellpinit School Dist. No. 49

198 P.3d 1021 (Wash. 2009) · Supreme Court of Washington · January 15, 2009 · No. 80771-0

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that the retroactive application of a 2007 amendment defining “disability” under the Washington Law Against Discrimination did not violate separation of powers. The court concluded that the legislature acted within its authority to amend the statute and remanded Hale’s disability-accommodation claim for further proceedings. The court did not decide whether Hale was disabled under the amended statutory definition.

Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the Court
Chambers, J.; Gerry L. Alexander, C.J.; Susan Owens, J.; Charles W. Johnson, J.; Mary E. Fairhurst, J.; James M. Johnson, J.; Richard B. Sanders, J.; Philip J. Thompson, J. Pro Tem; Barbara A. Madsen, J.
Jurisdiction
Washington
Decision date
January 15, 2009
Docket number
80771-0
Procedural posture
The Washington Supreme Court granted discretionary review of a certified constitutional question arising from an order granting partial summary judgment to Wellpinit School District on Hale's Washington Law Against Discrimination disability-accommodation claim.
Standard of review
Constitutional challenges and grants of partial summary judgment are reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
John L. Hale, Robbin Hale v. Wellpinit School District No. 49
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

disability discriminationreasonable accommodationseparation of powersstatutory interpretationconstitutional law

Practice areas

employment lawdisability discriminationconstitutional lawstatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the legislature's retroactive amendment of the Washington Law Against Discrimination's definition of disability, enacted in response to the Supreme Court's interpretation in McClarty v. Totem Electric, violated the separation-of-powers doctrine.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court should determine on the existing record whether Hale was disabled under the amended statutory definition.

Holdings

  1. The legislature's retroactive enactment of a statutory definition of disability in S.S.B. 5340, codified in RCW 49.60.040(25), did not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the facts presented.
  2. The court declined to determine whether Hale was disabled under the amended definition on the existing record.

Key quotations

In passing S.S.B. 5340, the legislature acted wholly within its sphere of authority to make policy, to pass laws, and to amend laws already in effect. (1028-1029)
The legislature has not threatened the independence or integrity or invaded the prerogatives of the judicial branch. (1029)
We hold that the adoption of S.S.B. 5340 did not violate the separation of powers doctrine. (1029)

Factual background

John Hale worked for Wellpinit School District in student support services and later at a satellite school. He alleged that abusive conduct by supervisors aggravated his previously diagnosed generalized anxiety disorder and depression, and he notified school officials and the school board of the condition and workplace problems. Hale left his position on March 20, 2003, and later sued Wellpinit, alleging that the district failed to accommodate his disability by failing to intervene and stop the conduct he claimed was exacerbating his condition.

Procedural history

Hale sued his former employer in Stevens County Superior Court for negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and disability discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The superior court granted partial summary judgment on the disability claim under the definition of disability adopted in McClarty v. Totem Electric. After the legislature enacted a retroactive statutory definition of disability, the superior court denied reconsideration on the ground that the amendment violated separation of powers and certified the issue for immediate review. The Washington Supreme Court accepted review, reversed, and remanded.

Remand instructions

Remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including consideration of Hale's disability-accommodation claim under the retroactively applicable statutory definition. The court did not decide whether Hale was disabled.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…