Karstetter v. King Cnty. Corr. Guild

• Citation: 516 P.3d 415
• Decision Date: 29 August 2022
• Docket Number: 83426-6-I
• Parties: Jared KARSTETTER and Julie Karstetter, his spouse, who together form a marital community, Appellants, v. KING COUNTY CORRECTIONS GUILD, a nonprofit corporation doing business as a labor union; Randy Weaver, Sonya Weaver, Leonard Orth, Katherine Orth, Garrin Clark, Gabriel Vigil, individually and as representatives of King County Corrections Guild, and William B. Aitchison, Anil S. Karia, and Trevor Caldwell individually and as representatives; and Public Safety Labor Group, a legal services public corporation, Respondents.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington

516 P.3d 415

Jared KARSTETTER and Julie Karstetter, his spouse, who together form a marital community, Appellants,
v.
KING COUNTY CORRECTIONS GUILD, a nonprofit corporation doing business as a labor union; Randy Weaver, Sonya Weaver, Leonard Orth, Katherine Orth, Garrin Clark, Gabriel Vigil, individually and as representatives of King County Corrections Guild, and William B. Aitchison, Anil S. Karia, and Trevor Caldwell individually and as representatives; and Public Safety Labor Group, a legal services public corporation, Respondents.

No. 83426-6-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.

Filed August 29, 2022

Judith A. Lonnquist, Law Offices of Judith A. Lonnquist, P.S., 1218 3rd Ave., Ste. 1500, Seattle, WA, 98101-3083, for Appellants.

Dmitri L. Iglitzin, Darin M. Dalmat, Benjamin Daniel Berger, Gabriel Frumkin, Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP, 18 W Mercer St. Ste. 400, Seattle, WA, 98119-3971, for Respondents.

PUBLISHED OPINION

Mann, J.

516 P.3d 417

¶1 Jared Karstetter appeals the trial court's order dismissing his claims for breach of contract and wrongful termination against the King County Corrections Guild (Guild) on summary judgment. Karstetter argues that the trial court erred by applying the "right to control" test rather than the "economic dependence" test to determine that he was an attorney retained as an independent contractor rather than an employee of the Guild. Karstetter further argues that, regardless of which test the court applied, he should be considered an employee of the Guild and permitted to pursue his claims. We affirm.

FACTS

A. Background

¶2 Karstetter began his career in 1975 as a corrections officer for King County where he was a member of SEIU Local 519, Public Safety Employees (Local 519). From 1984 to 1987, Local 519 employed Karstetter as a business representative; Karstetter attended law school at the same time. Karstetter has been a licensed Washington attorney since 1988. Between 1987 and 1996, Karstetter claims that he began representing Local 519 through consecutive five-year contracts.¹ In 1996, Local 519 was decertified. Karstetter was terminated.

¶3 In 1995, Karstetter registered a professional service corporation, Jared C. Karstetter, Jr. P.S. (the P.S. Corp.), which has been active since. Karstetter is the P.S. Corp.’s governor, owner, and sole shareholder.

¶4 In 1996, after Local 519 was decertified by the corrections officers, the Guild was formed as the exclusive bargaining representative of corrections officers and sergeants employed by the King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention. Karstetter claims that he continued to represent the Guild in the same capacity as he did Local 519—as an in-house attorney—through consecutive five-year contracts. On October 10, 2011, the Guild approved Karstetter's most recent contract, and the one subject to this action, spanning January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2016.² The contract provided for just cause termination:

Consistent with the rights and expectations of the members that the GUILD represents ATTORNEY may be terminated for just cause. The definition of Just Cause shall be the same definition that is currently contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement for GUILD members. In the event that the GUILD wishes to exercise this provision, due notice shall be provided to ATTORNEY and an opportunity to correct any behavior that GUILD deems inappropriate. ATTORNEY shall be afforded fundamental due process and an opportunity to answer to any and all charges. Termination of this Agreement shall be reserved as a final option.

¶5 In 2016, the King County Ombudsman's Office contacted Karstetter about a whistle blower complaint over parking reimbursements to Guild members. The Guild transferred the complaint to its Internal Investigation Unit (IIU). Karstetter produced information related to the complaint for the Ombudsman's Office. In April 2016, several Guild members filed Bar complaints against Karstetter. Karstetter requested that the Guild provide counsel to defend against Bar complaints by its members; the Guild refused. The Guild retained the Public Safety Labor Group (PSLG) law firm to advise on its internal governance matters, including the whistle blower complaint and Karstetter's conduct as counsel for the Guild. On April 21, 2016, PSLG provided the Guild a memorandum (PSLG Memo) that, in part, recommended the Guild terminate its relationship with Karstetter for Bar complaints, breaching client confidence, dishonesty during a court appearance, and unprofessional behavior harming the Guild and its members. On April 27, 2016, the Guild's Executive Board voted to terminate Karstetter.

516 P.3d 418

B. Procedure

¶6 In response to his termination, Karstetter and his wife filed suit against the Guild alleging, among other things, breach of contract and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The Guild moved to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief. The trial court partially granted the motion, but allowed Karstetter's claims for breach of contract and wrongful termination to proceed. We granted discretionary review and reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to dismiss Karstetter's breach of contract and wrongful termination claims. See Karstetter v. King County Corrections Guild, 1 Wash. App. 2d 822, 407 P.3d 384 (2017) rev'd, Karstetter v. King County Corrections Guild, 193 Wash.2d 672, 444 P.3d 1185 (2019). In doing so, we reasoned...