Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson

• Decision Date: 29 September 2011
• Docket Number: No. 84243–4.,84243–4.
• Citation: 261 P.3d 145,271 Ed. Law Rep. 1131,32 IER Cases 1600,172 Wash.2d 756
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 210, Respondent,v.David VINSON, Petitioner.

172 Wash.2d 756

261 P.3d 145

271 Ed. Law Rep. 1131

32 IER Cases 1600

FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 210, Respondent,

v.David VINSON, Petitioner.

No. 84243–4.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Argued Jan. 27, 2011.Decided Sept. 29, 2011.

Tyler K. Firkins, Van Siclen Stocks & Firkins, Auburn, WA, for Petitioner.Jeffrey Ganson, Rachel Edmonds Miller, Dionne & Rorick LLP, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.Shelby A. Hopkins, Federal Way, WA, amicus counsel for Washington Education Association.WIGGINS, J.

[172 Wash.2d 760] ¶ 1 A public school teacher or other certificated employee discharged by a school district may obtain review by a hearing officer and appeal an adverse decision of the hearing officer to superior court. But the legislature did not give school districts the right to appeal an adverse hearing officer decision. When a hearing officer decided in favor of petitioner David Vinson and against respondent Federal Way School District, the school district sought review of the decision by statutory writ of certiorari. The superior court denied the writ, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding sufficient cause to terminate Vinson.

¶ 2 We hold that the statutory writ, an extraordinary remedy, is not available to the school district. In contrast, the constitutional writ is always available to a party seeking relief from arbitrary, capricious, or illegal acts. The hearing officer acted within the limits of his statutory authority, and his final decision was not arbitrary or capricious. We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the attorney fees awarded by the superior court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 3 David Vinson taught school in the Federal Way School District (District) from 1988 until July 2007 without incident. By all accounts, Vinson was an inspiring and incredibly effective teacher.

¶ 4 In January 2005, Vinson filed a complaint with the District alleging sexual and malicious harassment against Thomas Jefferson High School Principal, George Ilgenfritz, and teacher, Christopher Kraght. He alleged Ilgenfritz failed to support Vinson when a parent called him a “flaming faggot” during a school sports event in 2002; Vinson is openly gay. After this alleged incident, Vinson claims Ilgenfritz targeted him for retaliation by forcing unnecessary classroom moves and undesirable teaching schedules. Vinson alleged Kraght, while speaking to students, repeatedly made antigay remarks targeting Vinson.

¶ 5 There had been previous complaints about Ilgenfritz filed by female teachers. In the course of investigating these complaints, Chuck Christensen, the District's executive director of human resources, confirmed Ilgenfritz used offensive language.¹ Christensen placed these investigation notes in Ilgenfritz's file in the District's human resources office but did not notify anyone of this unbecoming conduct.

¶ 6 Vinson's harassment complaint against Ilgenfritz and Kraght was assigned to District investigator Courtney Wood. Wood refused to interview identified student witnesses and ignored or failed to discover Christensen's earlier investigation notes. Wood also neglected to discover common knowledge among teachers that Ilgenfritz made sexist and homophobic remarks at staff meetings and did not take Vinson's allegations of homophobia seriously. Wood concluded neither Ilgenfritz nor Kraght had harassed Vinson. Vinson appealed that decision.²

¶ 7 On May 12, 2007, two days after filing his appeal, Vinson received a reprimand letter about “cheeking.” ³ He had never received a verbal warning about this action. Vinson also received a reprimand letter for failing to follow a student individualized education plan (IEP). Later that summer, Wood investigated a complaint filed by teacher Christopher Kraght alleging Vinson had harassed him through anonymous e-mails critical of Kraght's job performance. Wood's investigation of Kraght's complaint was far more thorough than Wood's earlier investigation of Vinson's complaint against Ilgenfritz and Kraght. Wood interviewed several students, including Rebecca Nistrian. Wood upheld Kraght's harassment complaint against Vinson. Vinson was instructed not to retaliate against any of the witnesses who participated in the investigation. As a result of these reprimands, Vinson was transferred from Thomas Jefferson High School to Federal Way High School.

¶ 8 Vinson continued to excel as a teacher at Federal Way; he was even featured in a Seattle Times article highlighting the success of the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) program Vinson had created. After school hours on May 1, 2007, Vinson encountered Rebecca Nistrian at a Taco Time restaurant. Nistrian was a former student who had previously called Vinson a “faggot” on at least one occasion. Hearing Officer Decision and Finding and Fact (HOFOF) at 4, ¶ 12. Nistrian initiated the exchange; the exact words exchanged are in dispute. Nistrian testified she said “hi,” while Vinson claims that Nistrian asked, “[W]hy aren't you at [Thomas Jefferson]?”, a reference to his having been transferred to Federal Way following the investigation for which Nistrian had been interviewed. Hearing Officer Transcript (HOTR) at 408. Nistrian's comment initiated a slew of vulgar words between the two.⁴ The verbal exchange was mutual and brief, lasting less than 20 seconds.

¶ 9 Nistrian reported the Taco Time incident to the District's human resources director, Christensen, who again assigned the investigation to Wood. Nistrian claimed students accompanied Vinson at the Taco Time incident, but this allegation was never validated. Vinson was understandably concerned about Wood's perceived lack of impartiality. Vinson expressed this concern at the start of their interview on May 22, 2007, but Wood ignored him. Without first explaining what the complaint was about, Wood also mentioned the police might be involved, causing Vinson to panic. Both Nistrian and Vinson ultimately admitted to lying during the course of the investigation by Wood. ⁵ During the summer of 2007, as the investigation proceeded, Vinson continued to work at Federal Way High School—he was never placed on administrative leave.

¶ 10 On July 5, 2007, pursuant to RCW 28A.405.300, the District notified Vinson of probable cause for discharge. The notice was based on alleged harassment of and retaliation against a former student and dishonesty during the investigation of those allegations. Vinson appealed pursuant to RCW 28A.405.300, and a hearing was held on November 27 and 28, 2007. Hearing Officer John G. Cooper presided over the appeal.

¶ 11 Hearing Officer Cooper found that the District failed to establish sufficient cause to justify termination of Vinson's employment. Of the District's grounds for dismissal, Cooper found Vinson's lie to Wood the most troubling but reasoned that Vinson's behavior was understandable based on Vinson's reasonable belief that Wood would not conduct a fair and impartial investigation and that the investigation was not conducted fairly or impartially. Applying the eight-factor test from Hoagland v. Mount Vernon School District No. 320, 95 Wash.2d 424, 623 P.2d 1156 (1981), Cooper ruled that the District did not have sufficient cause to discharge Vinson.

¶ 12 The District sought review via writ of certiorari, RCW 7.16.040, in King County Superior Court. Judge Mary Yu denied the writ, affirming the hearing board officer's ruling and granting attorney fees for the administrative hearing. Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, No. 08–2–05374–1 (King County Super. Ct., Wash., May 15, 2008). The District filed an appeal. In the meantime, Vinson found employment with another school and gave notice that he was rescinding his application for reinstatement and waiving his right to recover attorney fees. Division One of the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot. Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, 206 P.3d 1271 (2009).

¶ 13 The District then filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the parties had not settled. Rather, Vinson had unilaterally withdrawn his request and waived his right to attorney fees. The Court of Appeals granted the motion for reconsideration and withdrew its original opinion, holding that it had jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 7.16.350 and RAP 2.2(a)(1). Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, 154 Wash.App. 220, 228 n. 7, 225 P.3d 379 (2010). Two judges found there was sufficient cause for termination over a vigorous dissent.⁶ The two- judge majority reversed the superior court's denial of the writ and vacated the order that affirmed the hearing officer and awarded attorney fees to Vinson. Vinson appealed to this court, and we granted review. Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, 168 Wash.2d 1039, 233 P.3d 889 (2010).

¶ 14 The District submitted a motion to strike Vinson's answer to brief of amicus or for leave to file a supplemental brief. We granted leave to both parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the applicability of RCW 28A.405.340 and City of Seattle v. Holifield, 170 Wash.2d 230, 240 P.3d 1162 (2010).

ANALYSIS

¶ 15 The extent of a superior court's authority to grant a writ of certiorari is a question of law. City of Seattle v. Holifield, 170 Wash.2d 230, 240 P.3d 1162, 1166 (2010) (citing Commanda v. Cary, 143 Wash.2d 651, 654, 23 P.3d 1086 (2001)). We review questions of law de novo. Labriola v. Pollard Grp., Inc., 152 Wash.2d 828, 100 P.3d 791 (2004).

I. Statutory Interpretation

¶ 16 Our fundamental objective in construing a statute is to ascertain and carry out the intent of the legislature. State v. Alvarez, 128 Wash.2d 1, 11, 904 P.2d 754 (1995). The intent of the legislature must be determined primarily from the language of the statute itself. Lacey Nursing Ctr. v. Dep't of Revenue, 128 Wash.2d 40, 53, 905 P.2d 338 (1995). We construe the meaning of a statute by reading it in its entirety, Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wash.2d 1, 11, 43 P.3d 4 (2002), and...