Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - Personal Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Legal Roundup - Washington State Supreme Court

Briggs v. Nova Servs.

If there's one thing that chaps my hide, its opening up an opinion and seeing the words "Lead Opinion". Why? Because it means that there is a majority only as to the holding, but there is no majority as to the reasoning. Three justices supported the reasoning of the lead opinion and the holding, two justices each wrote their own concurrence, and 4 justices voted for and agreed with the reasoning on the dissent. So now I have to go through and parse the logic of the lead opinion and the two concurrences to see what matches up. You'd better appreciate what I do for you. You never take me out anymore. When was the last time we went on a real date? That's it, I'm going to stay with my mother for a few days.

Here's the run down. Board appoints an Executive Director. Employees hate Executive Director. Board affirms their support of Executive Director. Six employees quit, two are fired. Employees attempt to say their activities were concerted to improve work conditions, an activity protected under Ch. 49.32 RCW, termination in violation of public policy.

Held: Not protected.

The lead opinion and the dissent argue in terms of both the firing for concerted activity AND the tort of wrongful discharge. One is statutory, the other is common law. The concurrence by Justice Charles Johnson agrees with the reasoning that this is a concerted activity case. The concurrence by Justice Barbara Madsen conflates the two as well, but argues that the policy violated was never identified. So where does this leave us? With a result and no reasoning, essentially.

Really...we're on thin ice here. You'd better at least bring me flowers.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.