McMinimee v. Yakima School District Number 7 et al

Filing 44

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTION TO STATE SUPREME COURT 37 . Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

Case 1:18-cv-03073-TOR

ECF No. 44

filed 01/05/21

PageID.579 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

SHANNON MCMINIMEE,
NO. 1:18-CV-3073-TOR
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTION
TO STATE SUPREME COURT

v.

9

11

YAKIMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.
7, and JOHN R. IRION, in his
individual capacity,

12

Defendants.

10

13
14

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Question to State

15

Supreme Court (ECF No. 37). This matter was submitted for consideration

16

without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein, the

17

completed briefing, and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below,

18

Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Question to State Supreme Court (ECF No. 37) is

19

DENIED.

20

//

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTION TO
STATE SUPREME COURT ~ 1

Case 1:18-cv-03073-TOR

1

ECF No. 44

filed 01/05/21

PageID.580 Page 2 of 6

BACKGROUND

2

This case arises out of Plaintiff Shannon McMinimee’s employment with the

3

Yakima School District. Relevant to this motion, Plaintiff was placed on paid

4

administrative leave from November 6, 2017 until June 30, 2018, the date of which

5

her year-long employment contract ended and was not renewed. ECF No. 37 at 3.

6

Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the following question to the Washington

7

State Supreme Court:

8

10

Is an employee who is a party to a year-long employment contract
with his or her employer “discharged” under the wrongful discharge
in violation of public policy tort when the employer places the
employee on administrative leave but continues to pay the employee
until the end of that employee’s contract with the employer?

11

ECF No. 37 at 2.1 Defendants argue that “[t]here is nothing novel about whether

12

paid administrative leave amounts to a discharge. It does not.” ECF No. 41 at 2.

13

In reply, Plaintiff argues that the “Washington Supreme Court [has not] defined

14

precisely what the word ‘discharge’ means in the context of [Washington’s

15

wrongful discharge in violation of public policy tort].” ECF No. 43 at 1.

16

//

17

//

9

18
19
20

1

The parties’ joint status report stated that there were no issues that should be

certified to the Washington Supreme Court. ECF No. 15 at 2.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTION TO
STATE SUPREME COURT ~ 2

Case 1:18-cv-03073-TOR

1
2

ECF No. 44

filed 01/05/21

PageID.581 Page 3 of 6

DISCUSSION
Where state law permits, a federal court may exercise its discretion to certify

3

a question to the state’s highest court. Murray v. BEJ Minerals, LLC, 924 F.3d

4

1070, 1071 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391

5

(1974)). Washington law allows certification to the Washington Supreme Court:

6
7
8

When in the opinion of any federal court before whom a proceeding is
pending, it is necessary to ascertain the local law of [Washington] in
order to dispose of such proceeding and the local law has not been
clearly determined, such federal court may certify to the supreme
court for answer the question of local law involved and the supreme
court shall render its opinion in answer thereto.

9
10
11

RCW 2.60.020; see also Wash. R. App. P. 16.16(a).
Certification is not considered lightly, rather courts consider: “(1) whether

12

the question presents ‘important public policy ramifications’ yet unresolved by the

13

state court; (2) whether the issue is new, substantial, and of broad application; (3)

14

the state court’s caseload; and (4) ‘the spirit of comity and federalism.’” Murray,

15

924 F.3d at 1072. In ascertaining law absent an express decision from the state’s

16

highest court, a federal court may rely on the law of the intermediate appellate

17

court unless there is “persuasive data that the highest court of the state would

18

decide otherwise.” West v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 311 U.S. 223, 237 (1940).

19

The Court declines to certify the question because the issue is clearly

20

determined by guidance from the Washington Court of Appeals and Washington

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTION TO
STATE SUPREME COURT ~ 3

Case 1:18-cv-03073-TOR

ECF No. 44

filed 01/05/21

PageID.582 Page 4 of 6

1

Supreme Court. The tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy only

2

applies when an employee has been discharged. Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wash. 2d

3

58, 76 (2000). Placing an individual on paid administrative leave until the

4

employment contract expires and is not renewed does not constitute a discharge.

5

See Korslund v. Dyncorp. Tri-Cities Servs., Inc., 121 Wash. App. 295, 316 (2004),

6

aff’d, 156 Wash. 2d 168, 180 (2005) (finding no discharge where employee did not

7

permanently leave her position because she continued to receive a salary and

8

benefits); see also Davis v. Tacoma Sch. Dist., 188 Wash. App. 1043 (2015)

9

(discussing difference between discharge and nonrenewal of school district

10
11

employees).
While Plaintiff is correct in stating that the Washington Supreme Court has

12

yet to expressly rule on the issue, the Washington Supreme Court has provided

13

sufficient guidance so that the issue is not substantially new nor unresolved. The

14

Washington Supreme Court affirmed Korslund, holding “where the employee

15

continues to receive employment benefits and is still considered to be an active

16

employee, or where his or her ability to return to work is protected in some other

17

way, that employee has not been constructively discharged.” Korslund, 156 Wash.

18

2d 168, 180 (2005), overruled on other grounds by Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain

19

Co., 184 Wash. 2d 268 (2015). This rule is consistent with the Washington

20

Supreme Court’s statement that “[s]ubjecting each disciplinary decision of an

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTION TO
STATE SUPREME COURT ~ 4

Case 1:18-cv-03073-TOR

ECF No. 44

filed 01/05/21

PageID.583 Page 5 of 6

1

employer to the scrutiny of the judiciary would not strike the proper balance

2

between the employer’s right to run his business as he sees fit and the employee’s

3

right to job security.” White v. State, 131 Wash. 2d 1, 20 (1997) (en banc).

4

Moreover, Plaintiff’s cited federal authority demonstrates that this issue is

5

resolved by Washington law. See Walker v. Ellensburg Sch. Dist., 789 F. App’x

6

49, 50 (9th Cir. 2019) (“We conclude that [Plaintiff] was not terminated from his

7

employment. Rather, [Plaintiff’s] one-year contract expired and he was not

8

renewed for the next school year.”); Blackman v. Omak Sch. Dist., 466 F. Supp. 3d

9

1172, 1185-86 (2020) (“Plaintiff was never discharged from her position. Instead,

10

Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave with full pay and then declined to

11

accept an offer to transfer to a different position.”). Neither court expressed

12

uncertainty regarding Washington law nor was the issue certified in those cases.

13

Under present Washington law, an employee is not discharged where she

14

continues to receive a salary and benefits on a one-year contract that is

15

subsequently not renewed. Therefore, in its discretion, the Court declines to certify

16

Plaintiff’s question to the Washington Supreme Court.

17

//

18

//

19

//

20

//

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTION TO
STATE SUPREME COURT ~ 5

Case 1:18-cv-03073-TOR

1
2
3
4
5
6

ECF No. 44

filed 01/05/21

PageID.584 Page 6 of 6

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Question to State Supreme Court (ECF No. 37)
is DENIED.
The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish
copies to counsel.
DATED January 5, 2021.

7
8

THOMAS O. RICE
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTION TO
STATE SUPREME COURT ~ 6