Clarke v. State
| Decision Date | 27 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 33333-3.,33333-3. |
| Citation | 133 Wn. App. 767,138 P.3d 144 |
| Parties | Daphne CLARKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Washington ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
John R. Scannell, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.
Helen Arntson, Atty Generals Office, Aaron V. Rocke, Office of the Attorney General, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
¶ 1 Daphne Clarke appeals the trial court's discovery rulings and its summary judgment order in favor of the State of Washington on her claims for hostile work environment and discrimination. Clarke argues that the trial court erred when it (1) granted the State's motion to compel production of her tax returns; (2) denied her motions to compel discovery; and (3) granted summary judgment in favor of the State. We affirm.
¶ 2 Daphne Clarke began working for the State of Washington in 1995. From 1995 to 1998, she worked with several State agencies as a clerk, clerk typist, and office assistant. In January 1999, Clarke transferred from the Department of Social and Health Services to the General Services Unit (GS) in the Tacoma Attorney General's office (AGO), where she worked under supervisor Marcia Binger. GS handled telephone and in-person reception, mail pick up and distribution, conference room and copier maintenance, coordination of State-owned vehicles, copying, and other similar tasks.
¶ 3 Binger began receiving complaints about Clarke's work performance as early as March 1999. For example, one such complaint occurred in May 1999, when a writing class instructor complained that Clarke failed to prepare a classroom, despite being instructed to do so. When Binger brought the issue to Clarke's attention, Clarke refused to discuss it.
¶ 4 In June 1999, during employee ergonomics training, Binger instructed Clarke to re-position her workstation for proper alignment, but Clarke later returned her computer monitor to an ergonomically improper position. Clarke turned her back on Binger as she tried to talk to her about the ergonomics issue and Binger "lost [her] cool," slammed her umbrella on a work table, and pulled Clarke's chair around to face her. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 434. Clarke said that Binger almost made her fall out of her chair. Binger apologized.
¶ 5 Complaints continued about Clarke's work, including Clarke's failure to restock the copiers with paper, failure to follow directions, and sloppy work. But Clarke also received some positive comments for some work. For example, in July 1999, David Waterbury, Senior Counsel for the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, sent Clarke a memo praising her work on a copying project for his unit. Clarke received another positive letter in July 1999, for work she did on a Pierce County Courthouse tour.
¶ 6 In October 1999, Binger conducted Clarke's performance review. The review outlined several problems with Clarke's work performance, including improper or incomplete handling of faxes, copy projects, and conference room set-up for training sessions. The review included solutions and plans to address each problem area. Binger also communicated positive feedback and stated that Clarke was making progress with her communications skills. Clarke refused to sign the review form.
¶ 7 In December 1999, Binger sent Clarke a memo praising her improvement at GS. In March 2000, Binger conducted Clarke's second performance review, which contained generally positive feedback. Binger retired at the end of March 2000, and in April 2000, Fran Baldauf became Clarke's supervisor.
¶ 8 In May 2000, Baldauf received notice from the parking garage supervisor that a State car had been taken out of the garage at 8 P.M. the night before and was not returned until 6 A.M. that morning. Baldauf questioned the staff about the unusual car use and Clarke told Baldauf that an employee had checked the car out the day before but had returned it by 5 P.M. Clarke did not indicate that she knew anything about the use of the car. Several hours later, Clarke confessed to Baldauf that she had taken the car because her husband had been unable to pick her up and she needed the car to get home. Clarke offered to resign, but Baldauf rejected the offer.
¶ 9 Thereafter, Baldauf received complaints that Clarke misdirected the mail, performed poorly on photocopying assignments, and failed to meet deadlines. After Baldauf spoke to Clarke about the complaints, Clarke would often engage in embarrassing confrontations with the complaining persons at GS.
¶ 10 In August 2000, Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Jennifer Boharski reported to Baldauf that Clarke had made inappropriate comments to a State witness. She reported that a witness who feared retaliation from her coworkers had come to the Tacoma AGO to report alleged patient abuse at a State hospital. Clarke was at the reception desk when the witness arrived and she questioned the witness about the purpose of the meeting. When Clarke learned where the witness worked, Clarke told her that she had a friend who also worked there and that the witness should not say too much in her meeting. Subsequently, the witness's coworkers retaliated against her. Baldauf referred the AAG's report to human resources.
¶ 11 Also in August 2000, while Clarke was out of the office, another staff member found two batches of unopened mail tucked away on top of a supply shelf. The mail had been delivered to GS in December 1999, a time when Clarke was responsible for sorting and distributing mail. The mail contained important legal notices and consumer complaints. As a result of this discovery, Baldauf searched Clarke's work area where she found a "long overdue" and incomplete inventory project; undelivered copies of a judgment and consent decree; and a notice of hearing. CP at 278. When Clarke returned to the office in September, Baldauf discussed Clarke's failure to properly carry out her assigned work duties.
¶ 12 Then, in late 2000, after Clarke failed to complete yet another project as instructed, Baldauf directed her to correct the mistake. Instead, Clarke walked out of Baldauf's office.
¶ 13 In January 2001, the State informed Clarke that it was considering taking disciplinary action against her for her interaction with the witness, inappropriate interaction with her supervisor, and her unsatisfactory performance on several projects. It also temporarily reassigned Clarke to the GS office in Olympia.
¶ 14 When human resources gave Clarke notice of the disciplinary proceedings, it told her she could leave the office for the rest of the afternoon and that she could take her personal belongings but that she did not need to clean out her desk because the reassignment was only temporary. Clarke began going through documents at her workstation and placed them in boxes that she planned to remove. But Clarke's supervisors noticed that some of the packed documents were not her personal property. They instructed her to leave all work documents at the Tacoma office. Clarke then began destroying documents and ignored directions to gather her belongings and leave immediately. Eventually, the police had to remove Clarke from the office.
¶ 15 The State reassigned Clarke to home and initiated disciplinary proceedings against her. Clarke refused to attend the proceedings but provided written responses. Ultimately, in March 2001, the State decided to terminate Clarke. But Clark resigned just before the State terminated her.1
¶ 16 In June 2001, Clarke filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After investigating Clarke's claim, the EEOC found no violation.
¶ 17 Clarke filed a claim for hostile work environment against the State on March 16, 2004. She filed a complaint for employment discrimination and wrongful termination on May 19, 2004, and served it on June 2, 2004. Clarke alleged that she was "continually subjected to a hostile work environment;" that she was not promoted or given opportunities for career growth because of discrimination based on her race, ethnicity and national origin; and that she was terminated from her job due to discrimination. CP at 19. She alleged that she suffered damages, although she never responded to the AGO's request for a statement of damages.
¶ 18 During discovery, the State requested, among other things, copies of Clarke's income tax returns for the seven years prior to Clarke's lawsuit. When Clarke refused to produce them, the State moved to compel their production. Clarke opposed the motion but the court granted it and ordered Clarke to produce the documents within 14 days. Clarke moved to stay the order on behalf of her husband so he could intervene to seek a protective order.2 The court denied the motion.
¶ 19 On March 4, 2005, the State provided answers to Clarke's interrogatories but it did not answer interrogatories 45 and 46 because the number of interrogatories exceeded the allowed number under Pierce County Local Rule 1(h)(3).3
¶ 20 Interrogatory no. 45 asked:
Have you kept records regarding the effects of your employment decisions, including making employment decisions, such as hiring, retention, promotion, transfer, demotion, dismissal or referral as required by the uniform employee selections guidelines 41 CFR 60-3.4?
¶ 21 Interrogatory no. 46 asked:
If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is yes, provide the information in a format that can be used to analyze the possible adverse impact of each of the different types of employment decisions mentioned above, by race, sex, age both through the attorney general's office and statewide for all classifications that are utilized by the attorney General's office.
¶ 22 After the parties met to discuss Clarke's requests, as required by rules of civil procedure (CR) 26(i),4 the State agreed to answer interrogatories 45 and 46, but it told Clarke that it did not agree...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Broyles v. Thurston County
...at 264, 103 P.3d 729 (alteration in original) (quoting Morgan, 536 U.S. at 117, 122 S.Ct. 2061). Clarke v. State Attorney General's Office, 133 Wash.App. 767, 785-86, 138 P.3d 144 (2006). A. Conduct Outside the Limitations ¶ 48 The superior court denied the County's motion for summary judgm......
-
Stevenson v. Canning
...v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 162 Wn. App. 495, 504-05, 254 P.3d 939 (2011). Stevenson relies on Clarke v. State Attorney General's Office, 133 Wn. App. 767, 138 P.3d 144 (2006), Case v. Dundom, 115 Wn. App. 199, 58 P.3d 919 (2002), and Rudolph v. Empirical Research Systems, Inc., 107 ......
-
Modumetal, Inc. v. Xtalic Corp.
...(2015). "A court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on unreasonable or untenable grounds." Clarke v. Office of Attorney Gen., 133 Wash. App. 767, 777, 138 P.3d 144 (2006). ¶ 50 Under CR 56(f) :[s]hould it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that, for reas......
-
Park & Planning v. Mardirossian
...have required that defendants show a special need or situation compelling such discovery); Clarke v. State of Washington Attorney General's Office, 133 Wash.App. 767, 138 P.3d 144 (2006) (following federal cases that protect high-ranking government officials from discovery when other availa......
-
Washington Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects the Apex Doctrine
...reliance on Shields v. Morgan Financial, Inc., 130 Wn. App. 750, 125 P.3d 164 (2005), and Clarke v. State Attorney General’s Office, 133 Wn. App. 767, 781, 138 P.3d 144 (2006). The Shields court did not apply the apex doctrine when it granted a protective order denying plaintiff’s request t......