Category: Summary Judgment

Posted on

Employment Law 101: Summary Judgment (WA State)

Employment Law 101: Summary Judgment (WA State)
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Under Washington State laws, what is “summary judgment” within the context of a lawsuit? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement 



Introduction: Summary Judgment

In Washington State, the term “summary judgment” holds significant weight and plays a crucial role in the legal process. It is a procedural tool that allows parties in a lawsuit to seek a swift resolution without proceeding to a full trial; within the context of employment law, employer-defendants typically use this tool against employee–plaintiffs during litigation. This article aims to shed light on the concept of summary judgment within the context of Washington State law, outlining its purpose, criteria, and implications for litigants.

Overview of Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is a legal mechanism designed to expedite the resolution of cases by allowing the court to decide a case without a trial when there is no genuine dispute of material facts. This process is grounded in the belief that if there are no factual issues in dispute, the case can be resolved based on the applicable law. View the associated Washington State Superior Court Civil Rule (CR 56) — NOTE: the link will take you to an external website managed by Washington State.

Purpose and Criteria

The primary purpose of summary judgment is to save time and resources by eliminating the need for a trial when there is no real controversy. To be granted summary judgment in Washington State, a moving party must demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact and establish that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Key Criteria for a Successful Motion for Summary Judgment

1. No Genuine Dispute of Material Facts:

The movant must show that there are no genuine disputes regarding the essential facts of the case. All relevant facts must be clear and uncontested.

2. Legal Entitlement to Judgment:

The movant must demonstrate that, based on the established facts and applicable law, they are entitled to judgment in their favor.

3. Burden of Proof:

The burden of proof rests with the party seeking summary judgment. They must present sufficient evidence to convince the court that no trial is necessary.

4. Admissible Evidence:

The proof presented to support a motion for summary judgment must be admissible and adhere to the legal standards mandated by the court.

Implications and Limitations

While summary judgment is a powerful tool, it is not applicable in all cases. Certain types of claims, such as those involving credibility determinations or complex factual disputes, may be less amenable to summary judgment. Additionally, it is not a substitute for a trial when there are genuine issues of material fact that must be resolved by the trier of fact.

Conclusion

Under Washington State laws, summary judgment serves as an effective mechanism for streamlining the legal process and promoting judicial efficiency. It allows for the prompt resolution of cases where there is no real dispute of material facts. Within the context of employment law, employer-defendants typically use this tool against employee-plaintiffs during litigation.

Read Our Related Articles

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» Employment Law 101: Alternative Dispute Resolution

» Employment Law 101: Definition of Pleading

» Employment Law 101: Depositions

» Employment Law 101: Discovery (WA State)

» Employment Law 101: Legal Theory

» Employment Law 101: Mediation

» Employment Law 101: Motions

» Employment Law 101: Remedies

» Employment Law 101: Statute of Limitations

» Employment Law 101: The Complaint

» Employment Law 101: The Defendant

» Employment Law 101: The Plaintiff

» Employment Law 101: The Summons

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

–gw

Posted on

Self-Serving Declarations (WA State)

Self-Serving Declarations (WA State)

Under Washington State laws, must a nonmoving party’s “self-serving” declarations be taken as true on summary judgment in a civil lawsuit? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement



SUMMARY JUDGMENT: CIVIL CASES

In my Washington State employment law practice (I only represent employee-plaintiffs), employer-defendants typically file motions for summary judgment against my clients. “Summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party without a full trial.” See Summary Judgment, Cornell Law School: Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/summary_judgment (last visited August 3, 2023). “In civil cases, either party may make a pre-trial motion for summary judgment.” Id.

In Washington, “[s]ummary judgment is appropriate if a plaintiff fails to show sufficient evidence to establish a question of fact as to the existence of an element on which he or she will have the burden of proof at trial.” Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 12 Wn.App.2d 557, 569 (Div. 2 2020), review denied, 468 P.3d 616 (2020) (citing Lake Chelan Shores Homeowners Ass’n v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 176 Wn.App. 168, 179, 313 P.3d 408 (2013)).

SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS (WA STATE)

When defending against motions for summary judgment, my clients often file declarations that employers claim are “self-serving.” But “on summary judgment a nonmoving party’s declaration must be taken as true and can create a genuine issue of material fact even if it is ‘self-serving.'” Id. at 575 (citing Reagan v. Newton, 7 Wn.App.2d 781, 806, 436 P.3d 411, review denied, 193 Wn.2d 1030 (2019)) (emphasis added).

However, “[a] plaintiff cannot contradict unambiguous deposition testimony with a subsequent declaration.” Id. at 587, fn. 3 (citing Robinson v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 106 Wn.App. 104, 121, 22 P.3d 818 (2001)).

CONCLUSION

Thus, under Washington State laws, I believe that a nonmoving party’s “self-serving” declaration must be taken as true on summary judgment of a civil lawsuit unless it contradicts unambiguous deposition testimony.

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

Posted on

Disparate Treatment: Pretext by Comparison

Disparate Treatment: Pretext by Comparison

Under the McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting Scheme (hereinafter, “McDonnell Douglas“), may a Washington State plaintiff establish the pretext-prong by comparison, when pursuing a claim of disparate treatment? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement
 




MCDONNELL DOUGLAS BURDEN-SHIFTING SCHEME

In the summary judgment context, to succeed on a claim of disparate treatment using McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1168 (9th Cir. 2007).

If the plaintiff states a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant-employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the challenged action. Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. Of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks omitted).

If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must then show a triable issue of material fact as to whether the defendant’s stated reason is mere pretext for unlawful discrimination. Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt, Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). This last requirement is know as the prextext prong.

THE PRETEXT PRONG

Generally, to prove pretext under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s articulated reasons

(1) had no basis in fact,

(2) were not really motivating factors for its decision,

(3) were not temporally connected to the adverse employment action, or

(4) were not motivating factors in employment decisions for other employees in the same circumstances.

Id. (internal citation omitted) (emphasis and paragraph formatting added). The fourth element allows a plaintiff to prove pretext by using comparison.

PROVING PRETEXT BY COMPARISON

Accordingly, to prove pretext by comparison in Washington State, a plaintiff must show that

(1) an employee outside the protected class

(2) committed acts of comparable seriousness

(3) but was not demoted or similarly disciplined.

Johnson v. Department of Social & Health Services, 907 P.2d 1223, 80 Wn.App. 212, 227 (Wash.App. Div. 2 1996) (referencing Hiatt v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 26 F.3d 761, 770 (7th Cir.1994)) (paragraph formatting added).

Arguably, acts of comparable seriousness need not be violations of identical company disciplinary rules. See, e.g., Hiatt v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 26 F.3d 761, 770 (7th Cir. 1994) (Court previously held that “acts of comparable seriousness need not be violations of identical company disciplinary rules”) (internal citation omitted). Plaintiffs are free to compare similar conduct, focusing more on the nature of the misconduct rather than on specific company rules. Id. (internal citation omitted).

OCCASIONAL LENIENCY NOT ENOUGH

However, plaintiffs may need to demonstrate more than occasional leniency toward other employees who had engaged in conduct of a similar nature. See id. at 771 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Ultimately, “incomplete or arbitrary comparisons reveal nothing concerning discrimination.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Definition of Prima Facie Case**

» Disparate Treatment: A Closer Look**

» Disparate Treatment: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification**

» Disparate Treatment vs. Disparate Impact Discrimination**

» Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment**

» McDonnell Douglas Framework (Step 1): The Prima Facie Case**

» Prima Facie Case: The Replacement Element**

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment via Direct Evidence

» WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

** (NOTE: This is an external link that will take you to our Williams Law Group Blog.)

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

Posted on

Ambiguous Contracts & Summary Judgment: WA State

Ambiguous Contracts & Summary Judgment: WA State

Under Washington State law, how do courts view ambiguous contracts at summary judgment? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement
 




SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOT APPROPRIATE ON AMBIGUOUS CONTRACTS

Summary judgment is not appropriate on an ambiguous contract. Marshall v. Thurston County, 165 Wn.App. 346, 351, 267 P.3d 491 (Div. 2 2011) (holding the term “incident” as it appeared in the release of liability was ambiguous and therefore not subject to summary judgment)(quotation marks and internal citations omitted). Whether a written contract is ambiguous or not is a question of law for the courts. Dice v. City of Montesano, 131 Wn.App. 675, 128 P.3d 1253 (Div. 2 2006), rev. denied, 158 Wn.2d 1017, 149 P.3d 377 (2006).

AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT PROVISIONS

Contract provisions can be ambiguous if two reasonable meanings can be attributed to the contract or if a material contract term is uncertain or capable of being understood as having more than one meaning. Marshall v. Thurston County, 165 Wn.App. at 351 (holding the term “incident” as it appeared in the release of liability was ambiguous and therefore the release was not subject to summary judgment)(quotation marks and internal citations omitted).

EXAMPLE: MARSHALL v. THURSTON COUNTY

In Marshall v. Thurston County, Marshall filed a claim for damages in 2001 against Thurston County based on flooding to his property. Marshall eventually signed a release agreement with the County that exculpated the County from liability related to the 2001 claim as well as further claims arising from the “incident.”

However, in 2009, Marshall brought a new lawsuit for damages against the County as a result of additional flooding occurring after the release was signed. The County asserted that Marshall’s 2009 claim was barred by the previously executed release of liability, but the court found that the dispute turned on the meaning of the word “incident.”

The court then reasoned that the 2001 claim suggested two reasonable interpretations of “incident” and held that the release was ambiguous; “therefore summary judgment was not appropriate based on the meaning of the release.” Id.

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

Call Now Button