ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> Ross' Employment Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Labor & Employment Law

: Ross' Employment Law Blog

Don't fire the domestic violence victim

ADVERTISEMENTS

Ramona Danny sued in federal court asserting a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The federal court sent a certified question to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Has the State of Washington established a clear mandate of public policy prohibiting an employer from discharging an at-will employee because she experienced domestic violence and took leave from work to take actions to protect herself, her family, and to hold her abuser accountable?

The Washington court declined to answer that question, and instead reformulated it as:

Has the State of Washington established a clear mandate of public policy of protecting domestic violence survivors and their families and holding their abusers accountable?

The answer? "Yes." In 5-4 decision, with four opinions.

The court reasoned, "Washington State has unequivocally established, through legislative, judicial, constitutional, and executive expressions, a clear mandate of public policy of protecting domestic violence survivors and their families and holding abusers accountable."

The CONCURRING opinion agreed with the majority's answer to its reformulated certified question, but wrote in part "to express my concern about the burden placed on employers when this court recognizes new public policies..."

The CONCURRING/DISSENTING opinion argued that "the lead and concurring opinions improperly give retroactive effect to...new legislation, inferring a 'clear mandate' of public policy from a statute that did not exist at the time this suit was instituted."

The DISSENTING opinion argued that "[t]he fact that four opinions have been issued-and that we have decided to reformulate the question to avoid the issue entirely-dictates the answer that no such 'clear' mandate exists."

The case: Danny v. Laidlaw Transit Services (Washington 10/03/2008)

Majority opinion
Concurring opinion
Concurring and dissenting opinion
Dissenting opinion

Full post as published by Ross' Employment Law Blog on October 08, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0134 secs (new cache)