Person v. The State Of Wash.

• Decision Date: 19 August 2010
• Docket Number: No. 81931-9.,81931-9.
• Citation: 238 P.3d 1107,169 Wash.2d 467
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: Michael SEGALINE, a single person, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Washington, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Respondent.

169 Wash.2d 467

238 P.3d 1107

Michael SEGALINE, a single person, Petitioner,

v.The STATE of Washington, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Respondent.

No. 81931-9.

Supreme Court of Washington,En Banc.

Argued Jan. 21, 2010.

Decided Aug. 19, 2010.

Jean Marie Schiedler-Brown, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Kenneth Douglas Orcutt, Jay Douglas Geck, Office of the Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Respondent.

Daniel G. Lloyd, City of Vancouver Attorneys Office, Vancouver, WA, amicus counsel for Washington Association of Municipal Attorneys.

SANDERS, J.

¶ 1 We are asked to decide whether a government agency qualifies as a “person” under RCW 4.24.510. Because the purpose of RCW 4.24.510 is to protect free speech rights and a government agency has no such rights to protect, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L & I) is not immune to suit under RCW 4.24.510.

¶ 2 We are also asked to determine whether Michael Segaline's claim in the amended complaint against Alan Croft is time barred. It is.

FACTS

¶ 3 Michael Segaline, an electrical contractor, procured electrical permits in person on a regular basis from the L & I at its East Wenatchee building. On several occasions Segaline conducted himself in a coarse manner. The degree of this coarseness is disputed. Segaline contends he did not yell or threaten physical harm. Employees of L & I state Segaline yelled, shouted, threatened that he would sue them, threatened that he would have them fired, and the extent of his agitation caused them at times to fear for their physical safety.

¶ 4 On June 19, 2003, representatives of L & I, David Whittle, and Alan Croft, met with Segaline concerning his behavior. The meeting was not successful. Although Whittle attempted to discuss how Segaline and L & I's employees could conduct transactions with less conflict in the future, Segaline refused to participate and instead repeatedly demanded Whittle tell him (a) what RCW provision precluded Segaline from tape-recording the meeting-even though Whittle had agreed Segaline could record the meeting and it was being recorded; and (b) for which branch of the government Whittle worked. Segaline then ended the meeting by accusing Whittle of breaking the law by preventing him from talking to Jeanne Guthrie, the field service coordinator for L & I who had been previously unsuccessful with resolving Segaline's complaints. Segaline went to Guthrie's closed office door and started knocking. Unbeknownst to Segaline, Croft eventually called the police. It is disputed whether and to what extent Croft asked Segaline to leave the premises at this point and whether Croft called the police before or after such request. Segaline left as the police arrived.

¶ 5 As suggested by the responding police officer, Croft drafted a “no trespass” notice that stated Segaline was prohibited from entering the L & I building. On June 30, 2003 Alice Hawkins, an L & I employee, presented Segaline with the notice when he came into the office. Segaline pushed the notice aside and stated he could be in the office whenever he wanted. Someone at L & I telephoned the police. The police also provided Segaline a copy of the notice.

¶ 6 On August 21, 2003 Segaline came to the building and was allowed to purchase an electrical permit, but was told the remainder of the paperwork would be mailed to him because he was not allowed on the premises. The next day Segaline came to the office. The police were called; Segaline refused to leave; and he was arrested. The prosecutor ultimately dropped the charges for criminal trespass.

¶ 7 Segaline sued L & I, alleging that barring him from the office and his subsequent arrest constituted (1) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) malicious prosecution, (4) negligent supervision, and (5) violation of his civil rights. ¹ Segaline subsequently moved to amend his complaint to include a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Croft. The motion was granted.

¶ 8 The trial court dismissed all his claims. The court held RCW 4.24.510 granted L & I immunity from the majority of Segaline's claims, dismissed his negligent infliction of emotional distress claim as inadequate as a matter of law, ² and dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Croft as untimely. The Court of Appeals affirmed, Segaline v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 144 Wash.App. 312, 182 P.3d 480 (2008), and we granted review, 165 Wash.2d 1044, 205 P.3d 132 (2009).

ANALYSIS

¶ 9 Segaline obtained review to determine whether (1) immunity under RCW 4.24.510 applies to L & I and (2) whether his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Croft is untimely.

I. Does a government agency qualify as a “person” under RCW 4.24.510? ³

¶ 10 RCW 4.24.510 immunizes a “person” who communicates a complaint or information to a branch or agency of the federal, state, or local government from civil liability. The legislature was concerned with civil lawsuits that were being used to intimidate citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights and rights under article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution (“strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or SLAPP suits), particularly when that speech involved reporting potential wrongdoing to government agencies. See RCWA 4.24.510, Historical and Statutory Notes; see also RCW 4.24.500.

¶ 11 The narrow issue before the court is whether a government agency that reports information to another government agency is a “person” under RCW 4.24.510. “Person” is ambiguous in the statute and its meaning varies within the RCW. “Person” may include government agencies, see, e.g., State v. Jeffries, 42 Wash.App. 142, 145, 709 P.2d 819 (1985) (interpreting “person” to include government agencies in the context of restitution payments under former RCW 9.92.060 (1982)); corporations, see, e.g., In re Brazier Forest Prods., Inc., 106 Wash.2d 588, 595, 724 P.2d 970 (1986) (interpreting “person” to include corporations in the context of logging liens under RCW 60.24.020); or only human beings, see, e.g., RCW 9A.32.030-.070 (“person” used to identify the perpetrator of a homicide).

¶ 12 Here, a government agency is not a “person” under RCW 4.24.510. The purpose of the statute is to protect the exercise of individuals' First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and rights under article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution. RCW 4.24.510, Historical and Statutory Notes. A government agency does not have free speech rights. It makes little sense to interpret “person” here so that an immunity, which the legislature enacted to protect one's free speech rights, extends to a government agency that has no such rights to protect. L & I is not privy to the RCW 4.24.510 immunity.

¶ 13 This analysis is consistent with our previous case law. In Right-Price Recreation, LLC v. Connells Prairie Cmty. Council, 146 Wash.2d 370, 384, 46 P.3d 789 (2002), this court held two citizens' groups, exercising the free speech rights of their members, were privy to the immunity under RCW 4.24.510. The State's assertion that our decision there opened the floodgates for any entity to claim immunity under RCW 4.24.510 ignores the intent of the statute, which is to protect free speech rights. Where the citizens' groups there had free speech rights to protect, L & I here does not. ⁴

¶ 14 The State argues RCW 1.16.080(1) requires state agencies to be included as a “person” under RCW 4.24.510. See also Gontmakher v. City of Bellevue, 120 Wash.App. 365, 370-71, 85 P.3d 926 (2004). ⁵ RCW 1.16.080(1) states, “The term ‘person’ may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation or limited liability company, as well as an individual.” This provision does not compel the court to broadly construe “person,” but rather the use of “may” permits the court to interpret “person” to include such entities. In re Brazier Forest Prods., Inc., 106 Wash.2d at 595, 724 P.2d 970 ( RCW 1.16.080(1) “only allows, but does not require,” a broad construction of “person”). This permissive language demonstrates the legislature intended “person” to be defined in specific provisions of the RCW in accordance with the nature and purpose of those provisions. If RCW 1.16.080(1) compelled a broad interpretation of “person” throughout the RCW, it would produce absurd results. For instance, government agencies or corporations could be charged with murder. See RCW 9A.32.030.

¶ 15 Dismissal of Segaline's claims via RCW 4.24.510 was improper and those claims are remanded to the trial court. ⁶ Since RCW 4.24.510 does not apply here, attorney fees, costs, and statutory damages awarded under that provision are vacated.

II. Did the trial court err when it dismissed Segaline's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim as untimely?

a. Did the trial court use the incorrect date from which the statute of limitations ran for Segaline's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim?

¶ 16 Section 1983 provides citizens who are deprived of their rights as secured under a federal statute or the United States Constitution a cause of action against a person acting under color of governmental authority. The statute of limitations for Segaline's § 1983 claim is three years from the time the claimant knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action. Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wash.2d 34, 86, 830 P.2d 318 (1992). The Court of Appeals held Segaline's claim against Croft was time barred because Segaline knew or should have known of the claimed injury resulting from the no trespass notice on June 30, 2003 when Segaline was served the notice. Segaline, 144 Wash.App. at 332, 182 P.3d 480.

¶ 17 Segaline's representations of the nature and timing of his injury are muddled and contradictory. Segaline provides perhaps the clearest identification of his injury in his opposition to summary judgment: “[T]he decision by [L & I] to deprive plaintiff of...