Latest 4 Cases: Burnett v. Pagliacci Pizza, Inc. (Arbitration & Mediation), In re Welfare of D.E. (Civil Procedure), Washington v. Loughbom ...

Democracy Is on the Ballot: One Party Defends It, The Other Would Let It Die

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—explains why the 2020 Democratic National Convention was unlike any other political gathering in American history for reasons beyond its virtual platform. Sarat argues that the future of American democracy lies in the balance, and when we vote in November, it will be up to us whether democracy lives or dies.

Read More

Burnett v. Pagliacci Pizza, Inc.

Docket: 97429-2

Opinion Date: August 20, 2020

Judge: Barbara Madsen

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Civil Procedure, Class Action, Labor & Employment Law

Pagliacci Pizza hired Steven Burnett as a delivery driver. Steven Burnett attended a mandatory new employee orientation at a local Pagliacci Pizza. During the orientation, Pagliacci gave Burnett multiple forms and told him to sign them so that he could start working. One of the forms that Burnett signed was a one-page “Employee Relationship Agreement” (ERA). The ERA mentioned nothing about arbitration of disputes. Pagliacci’s “Mandatory Arbitration Policy” (MAP) was printed in Pagliacci’s employee handbook, “Little Book of Answers,” a 23-page booklet in which Pagliacci’s MAP appeared on page 18. The MAP was not listed in the handbook’s table of contents, and page 18 fell within the “Mutual Fairness Benefits” section. Burnett was given a copy of Little Book of Answers during his orientation and told to read it at home. Consistent with that instruction, the ERA contained a section entitled “Rules and Policies.” Delivery drivers like Burnett filed a class action alleging wage and hour claims against Pagliacci Pizza. At issue on interlocutory review was whether the trial court sustainably denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals affirmed, determining that the mandatory arbitration policy contained in the employee handbook, which was provided to the named plaintiff after he signed the employment relationship agreement, was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and, thus, unenforceable. The Washington Supreme Court held that the MAP at issue in this case was indeed unenforceable because no arbitration agreement was formed when the employee signed the employment agreement when he had no notice of the arbitration provision contained in the employee handbook. The Court also held that in light of the noted circumstances, even if an arbitration contract existed, it was procedurally unconscionable and unenforceable. Furthermore, the Court held the same arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable because its one-sided terms and limitation provisions would bar any claim by the terminated employee here, an overly harsh result. Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration was affirmed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

In re Welfare of D.E.

Docket: 98043-8

Opinion Date: August 20, 2020

Judge: G. Helen Whitener

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law, Government & Administrative Law

In 2018, the Washington Department of Children, Youth and Families (Department) moved to terminate J.J.'s parental rights to her three children. After closing arguments, the trial court orally ruled that the Department had not met its burden to prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the Department had offered all necessary services or that there was no reasonable likelihood of J.J. correcting her parental deficiencies in the near future. But instead of dismissing the termination petition, the trial court continued the trial without entering any findings of fact or conclusions of law. Two months later, the trial court heard more evidence and then terminated J.J.’s parental rights to all three of her children. J.J. appealed, arguing that the trial court violated her right to due process when it continued the trial after finding that the Department had not met its burden of proof. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the termination petition, holding the trial court indeed violated J.J.’s right to due process when it continued the trial after finding the Department had not met its burden of proof.

Washington v. Loughbom

Docket: 97443-8

Opinion Date: August 20, 2020

Judge: Yu

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In May 2017, petitioner Gregg Loughbom was charged with three counts of various drug crimes: count I, delivery of controlled substances acetaminophen and hydrocodone; count II, delivery of controlled substance methamphetamine; and count III, conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance other than marijuana. These charges stemmed from two controlled drug buys conducted by a confidential informant (CI) on December 20 and 31, 2016. The information was later amended to include school zone enhancements for all three counts pursuant to RCW 69.50.435. During jury selection, the prosecutor asked, “Are there any among you who believe that we have a drug problem in Lincoln County?” He then commented, “Wow, okay. Just about every[one],” and followed with the question, “Is there anyone who feels that we don’t?” Thereafter, the prosecutor referenced the war on drugs three times. The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court's review centered on whether the prosecutor committed reversible error when he repeatedly invoked the phrase, “war on drugs” during the one-day jury trial, without objection by petitioner. The Court held that the State’s framing of Loughbom’s prosecution as representative of the war on drugs denied Loughbom a fair trial and constitutes reversible error. Therefore, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for a new trial.

Spokane County v. Washington

Docket: 97739-9

Opinion Date: August 20, 2020

Judge: Susan Owens

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Election Law, Government & Administrative Law

In 2018, the Washington legislature enacted Substitute House Bill 2887 (SHB 2887), requiring noncharter counties with populations of 400,000 or more to elect five county commissioners by 2022, when originally such counties were required to elect three. SHB 2887 would also require affected counties to fund a redistricting committee to create five districts, one for each commissioner. These counties had to hold individual district elections for these commissioners instead of countywide general elections. Spokane County, former and current Spokane County commissioners, and the Washington State Association of Counties argued this law violated article XI, section 4 of the Washington Constitution, mandating the legislature to establish a uniform system of county government, and article XI, section 5, requiring the legislature to provide for the election of county commissioners through general and uniform laws. The Washington Supreme Court held SHB 2887 was constitutional under article XI, sections 4 and 5: "the legislature may classify counties by population for any purpose that does not violate other constitutional provisions, and SHB 2887 is a general law that properly implements district-only elections for noncharter counties of a certain size."