Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. 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 in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

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.

Court of Appeals: Div. III – False Report of Possession Charge Not Defamation

Van Hoven v. Pre-Employee.Com, Inc.

Mr. Van Hoven (VH) filled out an application for employment at Central Washington Hospital (CWH). As part of the application process, he was required to submit to a background check which included a criminal history. VH stated on his application that he had not been convicted of any crimes. conducted the background check and reported that VH had been convicted of possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. While it was true that VH had been charged with both of these crimes, he was only convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia (the possession of marijuana had been dismissed). Pre-Employee later corrected the report to reflect that the marijuana charge had been dismissed.

Pot Pipe

A human resources specialist from CWH met with VH and asked him about the convictions. VH admitted that he was guilty of both charges but stated that as part of a plea bargain, the one charge had been dismissed. Because VH had provided false information on his application, his offer of employment was rescinded. VH then filed suit against Pre-Employee for defamation. DEFAMATION?! What’s the thinking process here? “I’m a possessor of drug paraphernalia NOT a possessor of drugs! How dare you! What will my neighbors think!”

The case was dismissed on summary judgment and VH appealed…after he went to Jack In the Box for 99¢ tacos. Dude!

RCW 19.182.080(6) provides:

no consumer may bring an action or proceeding in the nature of defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence with respect to the reporting of information against a consumer reporting agency . . . based on information disclosed under this section or RCW 19.182.070, except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure the consumer.

VH argued that the statute didn’t apply, but did not argue that Pre-Employee acted with malice or willful intent to injure. The Court of Appeals found that the statute did apply. In addition, to prove defamation the plaintiff must establish (1) falsity; (2) an unprivileged communication; (3) fault; and (4) damages. Since the hospital would not have hired VH because of the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction, the wrong information about the conviction for possession of marijuana was moot. And besides…HE LIED ON HIS APPLICATION!! No damages=No case.


Subscribe in a reader

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