Thoma v. Spokane City of et al

Filing 164

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO WRONGFUL WITHHOLDING OF WAGES; granting in part and taking under advisement in part defendants' 71 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (LE, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5
6
7

No.

BRADLEY N. THOMA,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

CV-12-0156-EFS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO
WRONGFUL WITHHOLDING OF WAGES

v.
CITY OF SPOKANE, a municipal
corporation in and for the State
of Washington; and ANNE E.
KIRKPATRICK, a single person,

12
Defendants.
13
14

I.

15

On

February

20,

2014,

INTRODUCTION
the

Court

heard

from

counsel

as

to

16

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 71.

17

2014, the Court granted summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s breach

18

of contract and promissory estoppel claims and taking the remainder of

19

the claims under advisement.

20

II.

21
22

BACKGROUND

The Court previously set forth, and herein incorporates, the
factual and procedural recitation in the previous Order, ECF No. 160.

23
24

On February 28,

III. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A.

Legal Standard

25

Summary judgment is appropriate if the “movant shows that there

26

is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is

ORDER - 1

1

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

2

Once a party has moved for summary judgment, the opposing party must

3

point to specific facts establishing that there is a genuine dispute

4

for trial.

5

the nonmoving party fails to make such a showing for any of the

6

elements essential to its case for which it bears the burden of proof,

7

the trial court should grant the summary judgment motion.

8

“When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule [56(a)], its

9

opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).

If

Id. at 322.

10

doubt as to the material facts.

11

forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

12

trial.’”

13

574, 586-87 (1986) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis in original).

14

When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court does not

15

weigh the evidence or assess credibility; instead, “the evidence of

16

the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are

17

to be drawn in his favor.”

18

242, 255 (1986).

19

B.

20

. . . [T]he nonmoving party must come

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

Discussion
Defendant seeks summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s eleven

21

claims.

22

Fifth (Emotional Distress), Sixth (Negligence), Seventh (Outrage), and

23

Eleventh (Equitable Estoppel) Claims.

24

granted summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s breach of contract and

25

promissory

26

Eighth Claim, wrongful withholding of wages.

ORDER - 2

At the February 20, 2014 hearing, Plaintiff withdrew his

estoppel

claims.

The

On February 28, 2014, the Court

Court

now

addresses

Plaintiff’s

1

1.

Eighth Claim: Wrongful Withholding of Wages

2

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants wrongfully withheld his wages

3

in violation of Washington Revised Code §§ 49.48.010, 49.52.050, and

4

49.52.070, and is therefore entitled to double compensation.

5

1.

6

and that there is a fairly debatable dispute over whether wages should

7

be paid.

8

his employment for having a disability, violating § 49.52.50 entitling

9

Plaintiff to double compensation under § 49.52.070.

ECF No.

Defendants seek summary judgment arguing the action is not ripe

Plaintiff maintains that Defendants wrongfully terminated

However, “Washington courts have not extended RCW § 49.52.050 to

10
11

situations

where

employers

violate

anti-discrimination

statutes.

12

Rather, violations of § 49.52.050 have been upheld where an employer

13

consciously withholds a quantifiable and undisputed amount of accrued

14

pay.”

15

(citing

16

(2001) (failure to pay wages); Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 961

17

P.2d

18

Hemmings,

19

intentionally violated federal and state anti-discrimination statutes,

20

the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment that double

21

damages were available under RCW § 49.52.070.

22

neither

23

Washington

24

statutes, indicating that a change in the law has occurred since the

25

Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hemmings.

26

Inc., 885 F.2d 515, 524 (9th Cir. 1989) (“In interpreting state law,

Hemmings v. Tidyman's Inc., 285 F.3d 1174, 1203 (9th Cir. 2002)
Ellerman

371,

ORDER - 3

v.

Centerpoint

377

(1998)

where

the

party

has

Supreme

(failure
jury

Court

to

found

provided,

Prepress,

issue

that

and

decision,

or

22

regular

the

the

Inc.,

P.3d

paychecks)).

defendant

Court
change

795,

has
in

In

willfully

Id. at 1204.
not
the

found,

798

and

Here,
any

applicable

See Davis v. Metro Prods.,

1

federal courts are bound by the pronouncements of the state's highest

2

court.”).

3

Washington, Plaintiff’s claims do not set forth a basis to find a

4

violation of RCW § 49.52.050 or to receive double compensation under

5

RCW § 49.52.070.

6

as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Claim, wrongful withholding of wages, is

7

granted.

Accordingly,

the

Court

finds

that

under

the

law

of

Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

IV.

8

CONCLUSION

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,

10

ECF No. 71, is GRANTED IN PART (Plaintiff’s Eighth Claim) and TAKEN

11

UNDER ADVISEMENT IN PART (Plaintiff’s First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth

12

Claim).

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this

Order and provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this

3rd

day of March 2014.

16
s/ Edward F. Shea
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Q:\EFS\Civil\2012\0156.order.wages.lc2.docx

ORDER - 4