Rocha v. King Cnty.
| Decision Date | 09 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 96990-6,96990-6 |
| Citation | 195 Wash.2d 412,460 P.3d 624 |
| Parties | Ryan ROCHA, Plaintiff, Nicole Bednarczyk, and Catherine Selin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners, v. KING COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Toby James Marshall, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, 936 N. 34th St. Ste. 300, Seattle, WA, 98103-8869, Jeffrey Lowell Needle, Attorney at Law, 705 2nd Ave. Ste. 1050, Seattle, WA, 98104-1759, for Petitioner.
Karen Astrid Pool Norby, Heidi Joanne Jacobsen-Watts, King Co. Prosecuting Attorney Office, David J. Hackett, King County Administration Building, 500 4th Ave. Ste. 900, Seattle, WA, 98104-2316, Janine Elizabeth Joly, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, 500 4th Ave., Seattle, WA, 98104-2337, Prosecuting Atty. King County, King Co. Pros./App. Unit Supervisor, W554 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98104, for Respondent.
Michael Craig Subit, Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP, 705 2nd Ave. Ste. 1200, Seattle, WA, 98104-1798, Cynthia J. Heidelberg, Breskin, Johnson & Townsend, 1000 2nd Ave. Ste. 3670, Seattle, WA, 98104-1053, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Employment Lawyers Association.
Elizabeth Grace Ford, Seattle University School of Law, 1215 E. Columbia St., Seattle, WA, 98122-4419, Danielle Alvarado, Fair Work Center, 116 Warren Avenue N., Suite A, Seattle, WA, 98109, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Fair Work Center.
Jamal N. Whitehead, Schroeter Goldmark Bender, 810 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA, 98104-1657, Nancy Lynn Talner, ACLU-WA, Po Box 2728, Seattle, WA, 98111-2728, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.
Robert S. Chang, Seattle University School of Law, 901 12th Ave., Seattle, WA, 98122-4411, Melissa R. Lee, Jessica Levin, Seattle University School of Law, 901 12th Ave., Korematsu Center For Law & Equality, Seattle, WA, 98122-4411, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality.
Anita Khandelwal, La Rond Baker, King County Department of Public Defense, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 1000, Seattle, WA, Gordon Brennan Hill, King County DPD, ACA Division, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 700, Seattle, WA, 98104-1724, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of King County Department of Public Defense.
Elizabeth Grace Ford, Seattle University School of Law, 1215 E. Columbia St., Seattle, WA, 98122-4419, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Seattle University Workers' Rights.
Nancy Lynn Talner, Antoinette M. Davis, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Po Box 2728, Seattle, WA, 98111-2728, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Foundation.
Rita Joan Griffith, Attorney at Law, 4616 25th Ave. Ne, Pmb 453, Seattle, WA, 98105-4523, Thomas E. Weaver Jr., Attorney at Law, Po Box 1056, Bremerton, WA, 98337-0221, Teymur Gasanovich Askerov, Black & Askerov, PLLC, 705 2nd Ave. Ste. 1111, Seattle, WA, 98104-1720, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Jeffery Patton Robinson, Attorney at Law, 810 3rd Ave. Ste. 500, Seattle, WA, 98104-1619, Twyla Carter, ACLU National, 125 Broad St. Fl. 18, New York, NY, 10004-2427, Renika Moore, ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY, 10004, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union.
Tarra Denelle Simmons, Attorney at Law, 110 Prefontaine Pl. S. Ste. 502, Seattle, WA, 98104-2626, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Civil Survival Project.
Prachi Vipinchandra Esq. Dave, Public Defender Association, 110 Prefontaine Pl. S. Ste. 502, Seattle, WA, 98104-2626, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Public Defender Association.
Smriti Chandrashekar, Attorney at Law, 1915 2nd Ave. Apt. 2408, Seattle, WA, 98101-3167, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of South Asian Bar Association of Washington.
Raina Vaile Wagner, K&L Gates LLP, 925 4th Ave. Ste. 2900, Seattle, WA, 98104-1158, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Loren Miller Bar Association.
Courtney Chappell, Legal Voice, 907 Pine Street, Suite 500, Seattle, WA, 98101, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Legal Voice.
Hillary Ann Behrman, The Washington Defender Association, 110 Prefontaine Place South, #610, Seattle, WA, 98104-2626, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Defender Association.
Bonnie Stern Wasser, Law Office of Bonnie Stern Wasser, 320 W. Galer St. Ste. 201, Seattle, WA, 98119-3065, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of OneAmerica.
Elizabeth Ann Hanley, Schroeter, Goldmark and Bender, 810 3rd Ave. Ste. 500, Seattle, WA, 98104-1657, Stephanie Glaberson, Public Justice, 1620 L. Street Nw, Suite 630, Washington, DC, 20036, Bruce Stern, American Association for Justice, 777 6th Street N., Suite 200, Washington, DC, 20001, for Amici Curiae on behalf of Public Justice, The American Association for Justice.
Valerie Davis McOmie, Attorney at Law, 4549 Nw Aspen St., Camas, WA, 98607-8302, Daniel Edward Huntington, Richter-Wimberley PS, 422 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 1300, Spokane, WA, 99201-0305, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State Association for Justice Foundation.
Pamela Beth Loginsky, Washington Assoc. of Prosecuting Atty., 206 10th Ave. Se, Olympia, WA, 98501-1311, for Amici Curiae on behalf of Washington State Association of Counties, Washington State Association of County Clerks.
¶1 This case involves claims against King County generally regarding jury selection and compensation and raises the following three issues: (1) whether petitioners have standing under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), ch. 7.24 RCW, (2) whether jurors are employees entitled to minimum wage under Washington’s Minimum Wage Act (MWA), ch. 49.46 RCW, and (3) whether RCW 2.36.080(B)1 creates an implied cause of action for increased juror reimbursement based on economic status. Petitioners Nicole Bednarczyk and Catherine Selin seek reversal of a Court of Appeals decision affirming the superior court’s summary judgment dismissal of their declaratory relief, minimum wage, and disparate impact claims regarding jury service in King County.2 We affirm the Court of Appeals.
¶2 Jurors have been provided payments pursuant to statute since 1881, before Washington became a state. CODE OF 1881, § 2086. RCW 2.36.150 sets the range for juror expense payments and directs the county legislative authorities to determine the amount of the expense payment within that range.3 King County, under its legislative authority, has chosen to pay jurors in King County a $10 expense payment plus mileage reimbursement, which is the same statutory rate jurors received in 1959. See LAWS OF 1959, ch. 73, § 1. Although the statute allows an expense payment of up to $25 per day, King County, along with many other counties, have chosen the statutory minimum of $10 per day. This daily rate falls below Washington’s then minimum wage of $12 per hour ($84 for a seven-hour work day). RCW 49.46.020(1)(c).
¶3 Historically, courts have struggled with poor juror summons response rates, which is a complex problem with many contributors, including undeliverable summons and low juror reimbursement. studies have been conducted and recommendations made to address the low juror response rates. In 2000, the Washington State Jury Commission recommended that "legislation should be drafted requiring that current fees be raised, with the increase funded by the state." WASH. STATE JURY COMM’N, REPORT TO THE BOARD FOR JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION x (July 2000), https://www.courts.wa.gov/committee/pdf/Jury_Commission_Report.pdf[https://perma.cc/4AVL-6YNV]. In 2006, the legislature authorized a research project in select jurisdictions to assess whether increasing juror expense reimbursement to $62 per day plus mileage reimbursement would improve juror turnout. LAWS OF 2006, ch. 372, § 903. While the pilot project did not significantly improve juror turnout, the project also found that most jurors who did not respond or serve were unaware of the increase. WASH. STATE CTR. FOR CT. RES., JUROR RESEARCH PROJECT: REPORT TO THE WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE 4 (Dec. 2008), https://www.courts.wa.gov/subsite/wsccr/docs/Juror%20Research%20Report%20Final.pdf [https: //perma.cc/CWF 4-ULVH].
¶4 In 2016, petitioners filed this class action complaint in Pierce County Superior Court asserting claims against King County alleging that (1) jurors are employees and entitled minimum wage and (2) RCW 2.36.080(3) creates an implied cause of action for disparate impact based on economic status.4 Petitioners allege that low rates of expense reimbursement have a greater impact on low-income jurors and assert that this causes many jurors to seek excusal on the basis of financial hardship or to simply not respond to summons.
¶5 Factually, in 2012, petitioner Bednarczyk was summonsed for jury duty in King County and sought and received a hardship excusal from jury service.5 In 2015, Selin was summonsed and served 11 days of jury duty in King County. Selin was self-employed. Selin would have received $110 plus mileage reimbursement at King County’s current reimbursement rates.
¶6 Petitioners were included in the master jury list from which King County randomly selects citizens for jury duty.6 No challenge is asserted concerning the methodology used to compile the list.
¶7 The superior court granted King County’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed petitioners’ claims. Petitioners appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a 2-1 decision, holding that petitioners lacked standing under the UDJA, there was no implied cause of action for disparate impact, and jurors were not employees under the MWA. Judge Bjorgen dissented, opining that petitioners met their burden of standing and that an implied cause of action existed for disparate impact. The dissenting opinion did not address the MWA issue. Rocha v. King County, 7 Wash. App. 2d 647, 435 P.3d 325, review granted, 193 Wash.2d 1017, 448 P.3d 64 (2019).
¶8 We review orders of summary judgment and statutory interpretation issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.N. v. Kiwanis Int'l
...summary judgment dismissal of all claims, we describe the facts in the light most favorable to the appellants. Rocha v. King , 195 Wash.2d 412, 419, 460 P.3d 624 (2020).2 We use the Halversons’ first names for clarity.3 Those other related corporate entities were Kiwanis, a non-profit corpo......
-
Wash. Bankers Ass'n v. State
...analyzed in terms of the public interests presented, and we engage in a more liberal and less rigid analysis." Rocha v. King County , 195 Wash.2d 412, 420, 460 P.3d 624 (2020) (citing Farris v. Munro , 99 Wash.2d 326, 330, 662 P.2d 821 (1983) ). ¶ 79 Additionally, an association has standin......
-
State v. Meza
...venire based on economic status. Furthermore, granting an exemption based on hardship is not an exclusion. Rocha v. King County, 195 Wash.2d 412, 428-29, 460 P.3d 624, 632 (2020). ¶42 Second, jurors excused for financial hardship do not create a "distinctive group." The heart of a fair-cros......
-
Wash. Bankers Ass'n v. State
... ... 27, 36, 100 S.Ct. 2009, 64 L.Ed.2d 702 (1980))); Love v ... King County, 181 Wash. 462, 467-68, 44 P.2d 175 (1935) ... ("State government has the inherent ... more liberal and less rigid analysis." Rocha v. King ... County, 195 Wn.2d 412, 420, 460 P.3d 624 (2020) (citing ... Farris v ... ...