{"id":647,"date":"2023-05-11T11:46:58","date_gmt":"2023-05-11T18:46:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/?p=647"},"modified":"2024-11-16T13:27:48","modified_gmt":"2024-11-16T21:27:48","slug":"lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/","title":{"rendered":"Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This is a case summary of <a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\"><em>Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co.<\/em><\/a>, 36 Wn.App. 607, 676 P.2d 545 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984). &#8220;Simon Lewis appeal[ed] from the dismissal of his employment discrimination action against Lockheed Shipbuilding, alleging that the trial court applied an erroneous statute of limitations. [The Court of Appeals] \u2026 agree[d] and reverse[d] the order of dismissal.&#8221; <em>Id.\u00a0<\/em>at 608.\u00a0The subjects addressed herein include the following<span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">\u00bb\u00a0 <em>STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">\u00bb \u00a0<em>WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>(NOTE: this article does not address the additional issue concerning the continuing-violations doctrine.)<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><em><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>IMPORTANT:<\/strong> <\/span><\/span><span style=\"color: #800000;\">This article is for informational purposes only and<\/span><span style=\"color: #800000; font-size: 1rem;\"> is based upon my point of view. This is not a resource for the actual and complete appellate court opinion. 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 <\/span><a style=\"color: #800000;\" href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/disclaimer\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy<\/a><span style=\"color: #800000; font-size: 1rem;\"> before proceeding.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><center><em><span style=\"color: #00ffff;\">Advertisement<\/span><\/em><\/center><br \/>\n<script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-6555531347302259\" crossorigin=\"anonymous\"><\/script><br \/>\n<!-- Responsive 2017 --><br \/>\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\" style=\"display: block;\" data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-6555531347302259\" data-ad-slot=\"3088293120\" data-ad-format=\"auto\" data-full-width-responsive=\"true\"><\/ins><br \/>\n<script>\n     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\n<\/script><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<figure id=\"attachment_132\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-132\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-132 size-medium\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.png?resize=300%2C200&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607, 676 P.2d 545 (Wash. App. 1984)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.png?resize=300%2C200&amp;ssl=1 300w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.png?w=375&amp;ssl=1 375w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-132\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607, 676 P.2d 545 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984)<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h5 style=\"text-align: left;\">case summarY &#8211; 7 PRIMARY Facts:<\/h5>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[1]<\/strong> Lewis, a black male, was hired on October 12, 1977, by Lockheed Shipbuilding and Construction Company to work on a cable crew.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[2]<\/strong> It appears that Lewis suffered from hypertension, and that his doctor recommended that he be placed on light duty. [(Footnote omitted)].<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[3]<\/strong> The collective bargaining agreement provided that an employee would be regarded as having voluntarily terminated his employment following three unexplained absences.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[4]<\/strong> Because Lewis failed to report to work for three consecutive workdays or more without explanation, Lockheed advised Lewis&#8217; collective bargaining representative on May 4, 1978 that Lewis would not be rehired.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[5]<\/strong> It also appears that Lewis made several unsuccessful attempts to regain employment at Lockheed, but was turned down because he was placed in a &#8220;no re-hire&#8221; category.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[6]<\/strong> On March 6, 1981, Lewis sued Lockheed, alleging that his dismissal was the result of illegal discrimination under Washington law based on his disability and\/or race.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[7]<\/strong> The trial court, however, granted Lockheed&#8217;s motion to dismiss on the ground that Lewis&#8217; claim was barred by the 2-year statute of limitations, RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.130\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.130<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\"><em>Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co.<\/em><\/a>, 36 Wn.App. 607, 608-09, 676 P.2d 545 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984) (footnote omitted) (paragraph formatting and hyperlink to external website added).<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<hr \/>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h2><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">ISSUE #1:\u00a0 <\/span><\/strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (RCW 49.60), do courts apply a 3-year statute of limitations to actions pursuant to RCW 4.16.080(2)?<\/span><\/h2>\n<figure id=\"attachment_147\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-147\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-147 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/RULE-1.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Rule(s)\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/RULE-1.png?w=150&amp;ssl=1 150w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/RULE-1.png?resize=100%2C100&amp;ssl=1 100w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-147\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-RULE(S)-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h4><strong>[1-1] THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD) DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS<\/strong><\/h4>\n<p>&#8220;RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=49.60\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">49.60<\/a>, the Washington Law Against Discrimination, does not have its own statute of limitations.&#8221; <a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\"><em>Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co.<\/em><\/a>, 36 Wn.App. 607, 609, 676 P.2d 545 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984) (hyperlink to external website added).<\/p>\n<h4><strong>[1-2] TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (&#8220;CATCH-ALL STATUTE&#8221;) &#8212; RCW 4.16.130<\/strong><\/h4>\n<p>&#8220;RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.130\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.130<\/a> provides:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Actions for relief not otherwise provided for. An action for relief not herein[before] \u2026 provided for, shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action shall have accrued.<\/p>\n<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 609, 676 P.2d 545 <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">(hyperlink to external website added)<\/span>. This is also known as the &#8220;catch-all&#8221; statute. <em>See id\u00a0<\/em>at 611.<\/p>\n<h4><strong>[1-3] THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS &#8212; RCW 4.16.080(2)<\/strong><\/h4>\n<p>&#8220;RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.080\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.080<\/a> provides in relevant part:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Actions limited to three years. Within three years:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">* * *<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">(2) An action for taking, detaining, or injuring personal property, including an action for the specific recovery thereof, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another not hereinafter enumerated;<\/p>\n<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 609, 676 P.2d 545 <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">(hyperlink to external website added).<\/span><\/p>\n<h5 style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>[1-3a]\u00a0 Three-Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Invasions to Plaintiff&#8217;s Person or Property Rights<\/strong><\/h5>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">&#8220;RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.080\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.080<\/a>(2) applies only to certain direct invasions of a plaintiff&#8217;s person or property rights.&#8221; <em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at\u00a0611 (<em>citing <\/em><em>Noble v. Martin<\/em>, 191 Wash. 39, 46, 70 P.2d 1064 (1937); <em>Peterick v. State<\/em>, 22 Wash.App. 163, 168-69, 589 P.2d 250 (1977)) <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">(hyperlink to external website added).<\/span> Thus, &#8220;where the defendant directly invades a legally protected interest of the plaintiff, the 3-year statute applies.&#8221; <em>Id.\u00a0<\/em>at 612.<\/p>\n<h5 style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>[1-3b]\u00a0 The WLAD Liberal-Construction Mandate Supports 3-Year Statute of Limitations<\/strong><\/h5>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">&#8220;[S]upport for applying the 3-year statute is found in the Legislature&#8217;s directive that RCW <\/span><a style=\"font-size: 1rem;\" href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=49.60\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">49.60<\/a><span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\"> be liberally construed.&#8221; <em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at<\/span><span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\"> 613 (<\/span><em style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">citing Franklin County Sheriff&#8217;s Office v. Sellers<\/em><span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">, 97 Wash.2d 317, 334, 646 P.2d 113 (1982), <\/span><em style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">cert. denied<\/em><span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">, &#8212; U.S. &#8212;-, 103 S.Ct. 730, 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983); <\/span><em style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">Fahn v. Cowlitz County<\/em><span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">, 93 Wash.2d 368, 374, 610 P.2d 857 (1980)) (hyperlink to external website added).<\/span><\/p>\n<h4><strong>[1-4] THE CASELAW (4 CASES)<\/strong><\/h4>\n<p>In this case, the Court evaluated the following five cases to resolve the issue concerning statute of limitations:<\/p>\n<h5 style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">[1-4a]\u00a0 <em>Canon v. Miller<\/em><\/h5>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb\u00a0<\/strong>&#8220;In <em>Cannon [v. Miller,<\/em> 22 Wash.2d 227, 155 P.2d 500, 157 A.L.R. 530 (1045)], the plaintiffs sought to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/29\/chapter-8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">29 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 201, et seq.<\/a> (West 1978).&#8221; <em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 609 <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">(hyperlink to external website added).<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb <\/strong>&#8220;Because the FLSA does not have its own statute of limitations, the statute of limitations of the state where the action was brought was applicable.&#8221;\u00a0<em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb <\/strong>&#8220;The plaintiffs contended that the 3-year contract statute of limitations applied, and the defendants relied on the 2-year catch-all statute.&#8221;\u00a0<em>Id.\u00a0<\/em>at 609-10.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb <\/strong>&#8220;The court recognized that although the FLSA in effect created an implied obligation in the employment contract to pay overtime wages, this liability was not truly contractual because it would not have existed but for the statute.&#8221;\u00a0<em>Id. <\/em>at 610 (<em>citing Cannon<\/em>, 22 Wash.2d at 241, 155 P.2d 500).<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb <\/strong>&#8220;Accordingly, the court held that FLSA actions were not governed by the contract statute of limitations, and instead applied the catch-all statute.&#8221;\u00a0<em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5 style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">[1-4b]\u00a0 <em>Luellen v. Aberdeen<\/em><\/h5>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb\u00a0<\/strong>&#8220;In <em>Luellen v. Aberdeen<\/em>, 20 Wash.2d 594, 148 P.2d 849 (1944), the plaintiff sought reinstatement to the city police force.&#8221; <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at<\/span>\u00a0612.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb <\/strong>&#8220;The court held that, because the plaintiff had acquired a property right to his civil service pension, the city invaded that right by firing him.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb <\/strong>&#8220;The court thus applied the 3-year statute, stating that it<br \/>\nwas intended to cover injury to that kind of property that is intangible in its nature, especially when the injury consists of some direct, affirmative act which prevents another from securing, having, or enjoying some valuable right or privilege.&#8221;<br \/>\n<em>Id. <\/em>(<em>citing Luellen<\/em>, 20 Wash.2d at 604, 148 P.2d 849).<strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb <\/strong>Accordingly, Division One concluded: &#8220;[W]here the defendant directly invades a legally protected interest of the plaintiff, the 3-year statute applies.&#8221;\u00a0<em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5 style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">[1-4C]\u00a0 <em>State ex rel. Bond v. State<\/em><\/h5>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb\u00a0<\/strong>&#8220;In <em>State ex rel. Bond v. State<\/em>, 59 Wash.2d 493, 368 P.2d 676 (1962), the plaintiff sought reinstatement to public employment pursuant to a statute granting veterans an employment preference.&#8221; <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 610<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb\u00a0<\/strong>&#8220;He alleged that his claim fell within the 3-year statute as being an action upon &#8216;any other injury to the person or rights of another'&#8221;. <em>Id. <\/em>(<em>citing Bond<\/em>, 59 Wash.2d at 495, 368 P.2d 676. <em>See<\/em> RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.080\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.080<\/a>(2)) (internal quotation marks omitted) <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">(hyperlink to external website added)<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb <\/strong>&#8220;The defendant contended that the catch-all statute applied, because the plaintiff&#8217;s claim was founded upon a liability created by statute. The court flatly rejected this argument.&#8221;\u00a0<em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb <\/strong>&#8220;In the court&#8217;s view, cases such as <em>Cannon<\/em> held only that actions founded upon purely statutory liabilities do not fall within the 3-year contract statute of limitations&#8211;they did not hold that such actions necessarily fall within the catch-all statute.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 610-11 (<em>citing<\/em> <em>Bond<\/em>, 59 Wash.2d at 497-98, 368 P.2d 676) (footnotes omitted).<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb\u00a0<\/strong>The Court declared:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">We reiterate that there is no such category as &#8220;an action on a liability created by a statute&#8221; in our limitation statutes. Such an action does not fall within the &#8220;catch-all&#8221; statute unless there is no other statute of limitations applicable thereto, i.e., it is &#8220;an action for relief not hereinbefore provided for.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em>Id. <\/em>at 611 (<em>citing Bond<\/em>, 59 Wash.2d at 498, 368 P.2d 676) (footnote omitted).<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb\u00a0<\/strong>&#8220;The court went on to hold that an action under the veteran&#8217;s preference statute fell within the predecessor of RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.080\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.080<\/a>(2) as being an action for any other injury to the person or rights of another not hereinafter enumerated.&#8221; <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 611 (<em>citing<\/em><\/span>\u00a0<em>Bond<\/em>, 59 Wash.2d at 500, 368 P.2d 676) <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">(hyperlink to external website added)<\/span>.<\/p>\n<h5 style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">[1-4D]\u00a0 <em>Washington v. Northland Marine Co.<\/em><\/h5>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb\u00a0<\/strong>&#8220;In <em>Washington v. Northland Marine Co.<\/em>, 681 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1982), the plaintiffs sued their union under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), alleging that the union had not fulfilled its duty of representation.&#8221; <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 612.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb\u00a0<\/strong>&#8220;Because the LMRA has no statute of limitations, the court was forced to look to the appropriate Washington statute.&#8221;\u00a0<em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u00bb\u00a0<\/strong>&#8220;Following <em>Luellen<\/em>, the court rejected the catch-all statute and applied RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.080\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.080<\/a>(2), despite the fact that the plaintiffs&#8217; right to union representation was clearly not a property right in the usual sense.&#8221; <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 612 (hyperlink to external website added).<\/span><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_148\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-148\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-148 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/ANALYSIS-1.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Analysis\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/ANALYSIS-1.png?w=150&amp;ssl=1 150w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/ANALYSIS-1.png?resize=100%2C100&amp;ssl=1 100w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-148\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-ANALYSIS-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h4><strong>[1-5]\u00a0 LOCKHEED CONTENDS THAT THE 2-YEAR &#8220;CATCH-ALL&#8221; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO WLAD ACTIONS<\/strong><\/h4>\n<p>In this case, Lockheed contends that the 2-year &#8220;catch-all&#8221; statute of limitations applies to WLAD actions pursuant to RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.130\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.130<\/a>;\u00a0 whereas Lewis argues that a 3-year statute of limitations applies under RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.080\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.080<\/a>(2). <em>See<\/em> <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 609 (hyperlinks to external website added).<\/span><\/p>\n<h5 style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">[1-5A]\u00a0 LOCKHEED&#8217;S ARGUMENT #1 &#8212; THE 2-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES to liabilities created by statute:<\/h5>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">&#8220;Lockheed contends that the 2-year &#8216;catch-all&#8217; statute of limitations, RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.130\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.130<\/a>, applies to actions brought under \u2026 [the Washington Law Against Discrimination].&#8221; <em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 609 <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">(hyperlink to external website added).<\/span> Accordingly, it asserts that &#8220;the 2-year catch-all statute of limitations applies to all causes of action that are founded upon liabilities created by statute.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> &#8220;Because Lewis would not have a claim but for the Washington Law Against Discrimination, his claim, Lockheed contends, falls within RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.130\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.130<\/a>.&#8221; <em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 609 <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">(hyperlink to external website added).<\/span> &#8220;Lockheed relies on <em>Cannon v. Miller<\/em>, 22 Wash.2d 227, 155 P.2d 500, 157 A.L.R. 530 (1945) to support this view.&#8221;\u00a0<em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 609.<\/p>\n<h6 style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>COURT&#8217;S ANALYSIS &#8212; LOCKHEED&#8217;S ARGUMENT #1<\/strong><\/span><\/h6>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><em><b style=\"color: #008000;\">\u00bb There is no such category as an action on a <\/b><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><b>liability<\/b><\/span><\/em><b style=\"color: #008000;\"><em> created by a statute in our limitations statutes.<\/em><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><b style=\"color: #008000;\"> <\/b><span style=\"color: #008000;\">&#8220;Lockheed \u2026 relies on <\/span><em style=\"color: #008000;\">Cannon <\/em><span style=\"color: #008000;\">[v.<\/span><em style=\"color: #008000;\"> Miller<\/em><span style=\"color: #008000;\">] for the proposition that all actions founded upon liabilities created by statute necessarily fall within the 2-year catch-all statute. We do not agree.&#8221; <\/span><em style=\"color: #008000;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a><\/span>, <\/em><span style=\"color: #008000;\">36 Wn.App. at 610. &#8220;We reiterate that there is no such category as &#8216;an action on a liability created by a statute&#8217; in our limitation statutes. Such an action does not fall within the &#8216;catch-all&#8217; statute unless there is no other statute of limitations applicable thereto, i.e., it is &#8216;an action for relief not hereinbefore provided for.'&#8221;\u00a0<\/span><em style=\"color: #008000;\">Id.\u00a0<\/em><span style=\"color: #008000;\">at 611. (<\/span><em style=\"color: #008000;\">citing State ex rel. Bond, <\/em><span style=\"color: #008000;\">59 Wash.2d at 498, 368 P.2d 676).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<h5 style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">[1-5B]\u00a0 LOCKHEED&#8217;S ARGUMENT #2 &#8212; THE WLAD DOES NOT PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS:<\/h5>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Moreover, &#8220;Lockheed, \u2026 argues that RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=49.60\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">49.60<\/a> does not purport to confer or protect any property rights.&#8221; <em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 612-13 <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">(hyperlink to external website added).<\/span><\/p>\n<h6 style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>COURT&#8217;S ANALYSIS &#8212; LOCKHEED&#8217;S ARGUMENT #2<\/strong><\/span><\/h6>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong><em>\u00bb This argument is disingenuous: The <\/em><\/strong><\/span><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong><em>3-year statute covers all direct invasions of property that are intangible in nature.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\">&#8220;[T]he issue here is if actions under RCW <a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=49.60\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">49.60<\/a> fall within RCW <a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.080\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.080<\/a>(2). Only if they do not would the catch-all statute apply.&#8221; <em><a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 611 <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">(hyperlinks to external website added).<\/span> <\/span><span style=\"color: #008000;\">&#8220;RCW <a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.080\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.080<\/a>(2) applies only to certain direct invasions of a plaintiff&#8217;s person or property rights.&#8221; <em><a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 611 (internal citations omitted) <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">(hyperlink to external website added).<\/span> <\/span><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Accordingly, the Court found that Lockheed&#8217;s &#8220;argument is disingenuous. As [the case of] <em>Luellen [v. Aberdeen]<\/em> demonstrates, the 3-year statute covers all direct invasions of &#8216;property that is <em>intangible in nature<\/em>.'&#8221; <em><a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 613 (emphasis added).<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong><em>EXAMPLE #1 (Washington v. Northland Marine): <\/em><\/strong>The Court offered <em>Washington v. Northland Marine Co. <\/em>for example: &#8220;In <em>Washington v. Northland Marine Co.<\/em>, 681 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1982), the plaintiffs sued their union under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), alleging that the union had not fulfilled its duty of representation.&#8221; <em><a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 613. The Court determined:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 120px;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Because the LMRA has no statute of limitations<\/span><span style=\"color: #008000;\"> the court was forced to look to the appropriate Washington statute. Following <em>Luellen<\/em>, the court rejected the catch-all statute and applied RCW <a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.080\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.080<\/a>(2), despite the fact that the plaintiffs&#8217; right to union representation was clearly not a property right <em>in the usual sense<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><em><a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 613 <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">(both hyperlink to external website and emphasis added)<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong><em>EXAMPLE #2 (Luellen v. Aberdeen): <\/em><\/strong>The Court also determined that, in <em>Luellen v.<\/em> <em>Aberdeen<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 120px;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\">[T]he plaintiff sought reinstatement to the city police force. The court held that, because the plaintiff had acquired a property right to his civil service pension, the city invaded that right by firing him. <em>The court thus applied the 3-year statute, stating that it was intended to cover injury<\/em> <em>to that kind of property that is intangible in its nature<\/em>, especially when the injury consists of some direct, affirmative act which prevents another from securing, having, or enjoying some valuable right or privilege.<em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><em><a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 613 (<em>citing<\/em> <em>Luellen, <\/em>20 Wn.2d at 604, 148 P.2d 849) (emphasis added).<\/span><\/p>\n<h4>[1-6]\u00a0 FURTHER SUPPORT FOR APPLYING THE 3-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS FOUND IN WLAD:<\/h4>\n<p>Lastly, the Court determined: &#8220;Further support for applying the 3-year statute is found in the Legislature&#8217;s directive that RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=49.60\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">49.60<\/a> be liberally construed.&#8221; <em>Id. <\/em>(<em>citing Franklin County Sheriff&#8217;s Office v. Sellers<\/em>, 97 Wash.2d 317, 334, 646 P.2d 113 (1982), <em>cert. denied<\/em>, &#8212; U.S. &#8212;-, 103 S.Ct. 730, 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983); <em>Fahn v. Cowlitz County<\/em>, 93 Wash.2d 368, 374, 610 P.2d 857 (1980)) <span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\">(hyperlink to external website added).<\/span><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_149\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-149\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-149 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/CONCLUSION-1.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Conclusion\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/CONCLUSION-1.png?w=150&amp;ssl=1 150w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/CONCLUSION-1.png?resize=100%2C100&amp;ssl=1 100w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-149\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-CONCLUSION-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h4><strong>[1-7]\u00a0 COURTS APPLY A 3-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO WLAD ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RCW 4.16.080(2) &#8212; REVERSED &amp; REMANDED:<\/strong><\/h4>\n<p>Here, the Court found that under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=49.60\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">49.60<\/a>), courts apply a 3-year statute of limitations to actions pursuant to RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=4.16.080\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4.16.080<\/a>(2). <em>See <a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a><i>, <\/i><\/em>36 Wn.App. at 611-613 (hyperlinks to external website added). Moreover, the Court determined that, &#8220;even if the arguments favoring application of the 2 and 3-year statutes were otherwise fairly equal, applying the 3-year statute better supports the liberal policies underlying the Law Against Discrimination.&#8221; <i>Id. <\/i>at 613. Accordingly, Division One held: &#8220;The order dismissing the action is reversed and the case is remanded for trial.&#8221; <em>Id. <\/em>at 614.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<hr \/>\n<h2><span style=\"color: #333399;\"><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">NOTABLES &amp; IMPLICATIONS<\/span>:<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n<h5><em>FAILURE OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO PERFORM THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES &#8212; northern<\/em><strong><em> grain &amp; warehouse co. V. holst<\/em><\/strong><\/h5>\n<p>The Court in this case also evaluated <em>Northern Grain &amp; Warehouse Co. v. Holst<\/em>, to conclude:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Washington courts have consistently followed <em>Northern Grain<\/em> in holding that the 2-year catch-all statute applies to causes of action arising out of the failure of public officials to perform their official duties.<\/p>\n<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 612 (<em>citing<\/em> <em>Constable v. Duke<\/em>, 144 Wash. 263, 266-67, 257 P. 637 (1927); <em>Gates v. Rosen<\/em>, 29 Wash.App. 936, 941, 631 P.2d 993 (1981), <em>aff&#8217;d sub nom. Hall v. Niemer<\/em>, 97 Wash.2d 574, 649 P.2d 98 (1982); <em>Peterick v. State, supra,<\/em> 22 Wash.App. at 169, 589 P.2d 250)).<\/p>\n<p>The Court evaluated <em>Northern Grain<\/em> as follows:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u2022 <\/strong>&#8220;In <em>Northern Grain &amp; Warehouse Co. v. Holst<\/em>, [ ] the plaintiff was unable to retrieve grain stored at a warehouse upon presentation of a warehouse receipt.&#8221; <em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at\u00a0611-12.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u2022 <\/strong>&#8220;He then sued members of the public service commission for negligently issuing a license to the owner of the warehouse without obtaining a bond as required by state law.&#8221;\u00a0<em>Id.\u00a0<\/em>at 612.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u2022 <\/strong>&#8220;The court reasoned that the 3-year statute of limitations for injuries to the &#8216;rights of another&#8217; must be construed narrowly or it would incorporate all causes of action, completely nullifying the catch-all statute.&#8221;\u00a0<em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u2022 <\/strong>&#8220;Accordingly, the court held that the plaintiff&#8217;s cause of action was not based upon an injury sufficiently direct to fall within the 3-year statute.&#8221;\u00a0<em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u2022 <\/strong>&#8220;Rather, it was &#8216;indirectly based upon the failure of public officials to perform duties imposed by law.'&#8221;\u00a0<em>Id.\u00a0<\/em>(<em>citing<\/em>\u00a0<em>Northern Grain<\/em>, 95 Wash. at 315, 163 P. 775).<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>\u2022 <\/strong>&#8220;Washington courts have consistently followed <em>Northern Grain<\/em> in holding that the 2-year catch-all statute applies to causes of action arising out of the failure of public officials to perform their official duties.&#8221; <em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\">Lewis<\/a>, <\/em>36 Wn.App. at 612 (<em>citing <\/em><em>Constable v. Duke<\/em>, 144 Wash. 263, 266-67, 257 P. 637 (1927); <em>Gates v. Rosen<\/em>, 29 Wash.App. 936, 941, 631 P.2d 993 (1981), <em>aff&#8217;d sub nom. Hall v. Niemer<\/em>, 97 Wash.2d 574, 649 P.2d 98 (1982); <em>Peterick v. State, supra,<\/em> 22 Wash.App. at 169, 589 P.2d 250)).<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h5>LEARN MORE<\/h5>\n<p>If you would like to learn more, consider contacting an <a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/attorney-gregory-williams\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">experienced employment discrimination attorney<\/a> to discuss your case.\u00a0This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Washington Employment Law Digest or the <a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/attorney-gregory-williams\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">author of this article<\/a>. By reading this article, you agree to our <a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/disclaimer\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Disclaimer \/ Terms-of-Use \/ Privacy Policy<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This is a case summary of Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607, 676 P.2d 545 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984). &#8220;Simon Lewis appeal[ed] from the dismissal of his employment discrimination action against Lockheed Shipbuilding, alleging that the trial court applied an erroneous statute of limitations. [The Court of Appeals] \u2026 agree[d] and &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984)&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[70,44,106,53,54,68,69,115,1,43,60],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-647","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-disability","category-division-1","category-employer-defenses","category-verdict","category-plaintiff-victory","category-protected-classes","category-race-or-color","category-statute-of-limitations","category-uncategorized","category-washington-courts","category-washington-law-against-discrimination"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984) - Washington Employment Law Digest<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., &quot;Simon Lewis appeals from the dismissal of his employment discrimination action against Lockheed Shipbuilding, alleging that the trial court applied an erroneous statute of limitations. We agree and reverse the order of dismissal.&quot;\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984) - Washington Employment Law Digest\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., &quot;Simon Lewis appeals from the dismissal of his employment discrimination action against Lockheed Shipbuilding, alleging that the trial court applied an erroneous statute of limitations. We agree and reverse the order of dismissal.&quot;\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Washington Employment Law Digest\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-05-11T18:46:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-11-16T21:27:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"375\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"250\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@gawlaw\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f1204669dd452933916ac13a7b5f3496\"},\"headline\":\"Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984)\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-05-11T18:46:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-11-16T21:27:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2740,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-1-300x200.png\",\"articleSection\":{\"0\":\"Disability\",\"1\":\"Division 1\",\"2\":\"Employer Defenses\",\"3\":\"Outcome\",\"4\":\"Plaintiff Victory\",\"5\":\"Protected Classes\",\"6\":\"Race or Color\",\"7\":\"Statute of Limitations\",\"9\":\"Washington Courts\",\"10\":\"Washington Law Against Discrimination\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\\\/\",\"name\":\"Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984) - Washington Employment Law Digest\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-1-300x200.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-05-11T18:46:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-11-16T21:27:48+00:00\",\"description\":\"In Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., \\\"Simon Lewis appeals from the dismissal of his employment discrimination action against Lockheed Shipbuilding, alleging that the trial court applied an erroneous statute of limitations. We agree and reverse the order of dismissal.\\\"\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-1.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-1.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1\",\"width\":375,\"height\":250},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/\",\"name\":\"Washington Employment Law Digest\",\"description\":\"WA State Employment Law Articles\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Washington Employment Law Digest\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-1.png\",\"width\":375,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Washington Employment Law Digest\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f1204669dd452933916ac13a7b5f3496\",\"name\":\"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e0a3750a0ed80b0dfb7e8139a0c21ac091e65e62919b8b8478d9a511ad3812c6?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e0a3750a0ed80b0dfb7e8139a0c21ac091e65e62919b8b8478d9a511ad3812c6?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e0a3750a0ed80b0dfb7e8139a0c21ac091e65e62919b8b8478d9a511ad3812c6?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.\"},\"description\":\"A forceful, commanding, and bold trial attorney. Admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Federal Claims; U.S. District Court Western District of WA; and all Washington State Courts. Member of the Federal Bar Association; Tacoma-Pierce County Bar Association; WA Association for Justice; WA Defender Association; WA State Bar Association. Conflict Panel Attorney (Pierce County Department of Assigned Counsel).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/gawlaw\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/channel\\\/UCqpgdl3uXhQ3Sl9QdKC_UuQ\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984) - Washington Employment Law Digest","description":"In Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., \"Simon Lewis appeals from the dismissal of his employment discrimination action against Lockheed Shipbuilding, alleging that the trial court applied an erroneous statute of limitations. We agree and reverse the order of dismissal.\"","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984) - Washington Employment Law Digest","og_description":"In Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., \"Simon Lewis appeals from the dismissal of his employment discrimination action against Lockheed Shipbuilding, alleging that the trial court applied an erroneous statute of limitations. We agree and reverse the order of dismissal.\"","og_url":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/","og_site_name":"Washington Employment Law Digest","article_published_time":"2023-05-11T18:46:58+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-11-16T21:27:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":375,"height":250,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@gawlaw","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/"},"author":{"name":"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#\/schema\/person\/f1204669dd452933916ac13a7b5f3496"},"headline":"Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984)","datePublished":"2023-05-11T18:46:58+00:00","dateModified":"2024-11-16T21:27:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/"},"wordCount":2740,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1-300x200.png","articleSection":{"0":"Disability","1":"Division 1","2":"Employer Defenses","3":"Outcome","4":"Plaintiff Victory","5":"Protected Classes","6":"Race or Color","7":"Statute of Limitations","9":"Washington Courts","10":"Washington Law Against Discrimination"},"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/","url":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/","name":"Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984) - Washington Employment Law Digest","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1-300x200.png","datePublished":"2023-05-11T18:46:58+00:00","dateModified":"2024-11-16T21:27:48+00:00","description":"In Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., \"Simon Lewis appeals from the dismissal of his employment discrimination action against Lockheed Shipbuilding, alleging that the trial court applied an erroneous statute of limitations. We agree and reverse the order of dismissal.\"","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1","width":375,"height":250},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/lewis-v-lockheed-shipbuilding-and-const-co\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#website","url":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/","name":"Washington Employment Law Digest","description":"WA State Employment Law Articles","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#organization","name":"Washington Employment Law Digest","url":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.png","width":375,"height":250,"caption":"Washington Employment Law Digest"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#\/schema\/person\/f1204669dd452933916ac13a7b5f3496","name":"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e0a3750a0ed80b0dfb7e8139a0c21ac091e65e62919b8b8478d9a511ad3812c6?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e0a3750a0ed80b0dfb7e8139a0c21ac091e65e62919b8b8478d9a511ad3812c6?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e0a3750a0ed80b0dfb7e8139a0c21ac091e65e62919b8b8478d9a511ad3812c6?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Gregory A. Williams, Esq."},"description":"A forceful, commanding, and bold trial attorney. Admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Federal Claims; U.S. District Court Western District of WA; and all Washington State Courts. Member of the Federal Bar Association; Tacoma-Pierce County Bar Association; WA Association for Justice; WA Defender Association; WA State Bar Association. Conflict Panel Attorney (Pierce County Department of Assigned Counsel).","sameAs":["https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com","https:\/\/x.com\/gawlaw","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCqpgdl3uXhQ3Sl9QdKC_UuQ"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/647","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=647"}],"version-history":[{"count":36,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/647\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":778,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/647\/revisions\/778"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}