Wash. State Nurses Ass'n v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 97532-9,97532-9
• Citation: 469 P.3d 300
• Parties: WASHINGTON STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION, Respondent/Cross Appellant, v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a Yakima Hma, LLC, d/b/a Yakima Regional Medical and Cardiac Center, Appellant/Cross Respondent, Veronica Knudson and Brian Braegger, Defendants.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

469 P.3d 300

WASHINGTON STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION, Respondent/Cross Appellant,

v.COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a Yakima Hma, LLC, d/b/a Yakima Regional Medical and Cardiac Center, Appellant/Cross Respondent,Veronica Knudson and Brian Braegger, Defendants.

No. 97532-9

Supreme Court of Washington.

Argued January 23, 2020

Filed August 13, 2020

Paula Lee Lehmann, Mary Rachel Sanden, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, 929 108th Ave. Ne Ste. 1500, Bellevue, WA, 98004-4786, for Appellant.

Jennifer L. Robbins, Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP, 18 W Mercer St. Ste. 400, Seattle, WA, 98119-3971, for Respondent.

James Gerard McGuinness, Streepy Law PLLC, 1728 109th Avenue Ct. E., Edgewood, WA, 98372-7204, Aaron M. Streepy, Streepy Law, PLLC, 4218 227th Avenue Ct. E., Buckley, WA, 98321-9744, for Amici Curiae on behalf of United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 21, Seiu 1199nw, American Nurses Association.

Erika L. Nusser, Blythe H. Chandler, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, 936 N. 34th St. Ste. 300, Seattle, WA, 98103-8869, William Joel Rutzick, Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, 810 3rd Ave. Ste. 500, Seattle, WA, 98104-1657, Jeffrey Lowell Needle, Attorney at Law, 705 2nd Ave. Ste. 1050, Seattle, WA, 98104-1759, for Amici Curiae on behalf of Washington Employment Lawyers Association, Washington State Labor Council.

MONTOYA-LEWIS, J.

¶1 Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA) seeks damages on behalf of its member nurses for unpaid working hours, overtime hours, and missed meal periods. We are asked to decide whether an association has standing to bring a claim on behalf of its members when it must rely on representative testimony in order to establish the amount and extent of damages that its members suffered. Since these damages established through representative testimony were not certain, easily ascertainable, or within the knowledge of the defendant, we hold that WSNA does not have standing to bring such a claim.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Factual Background

¶2 Yakima HMA LLC (Yakima Regional) is a general medical and surgical hospital in Yakima, Washington. Yakima Regional has a home care agency, which includes its home health and hospice programs. The home care agency provides home care services to individuals with postsurgical needs, long-term health conditions, and terminal illnesses. The nurses who work in the home health and hospice programs travel individually to patients’ residences to provide home care nursing services. WSNA is a statewide labor organization and was the exclusive bargaining representative of Yakima Regional's home care and hospice nurses during the time period at issue.

¶3 Yakima Regional assigned home health and hospice nurses to territories with the goal of aligning patient assignments with the geographic area in which the nurse lived. The nurses had a relatively independent schedule but had productivity requirements set by Yakima Regional. The nurses were required to reach five to six "stats" per day, which included the time it took to drive to the patient, the patient visit itself, the documentation and charting, and any follow-up coordination with other services—such as pharmacy, occupational therapy, or chaplaincy. Documentation and charting needed to be finished for each visit within 24 hours so that on-call nurses could access the patient charting information. Yakima Regional expected nurses to meet the productivity requirements—five or six stats—within an 8-hour working day. If a nurse needed to work overtime in order to complete their stats, they were required to call in advance to seek overtime approval. Additionally, the nurses were entitled to a 30-minute unpaid, uninterrupted meal period.

¶4 Nurses regularly could not complete the productivity requirements within an 8-hour working day and often spent hours on documentation and charting at the end of the day, during their lunch time, and in the early mornings. Nurses were also rarely able to take a 30-minute uninterrupted meal break. When nurses tried to request overtime to complete their charting, the request was often denied. On the rare occasion when overtime was approved, it was for only a number of hours insufficient to finish the documentation. Multiple nurses attempted to discuss the impossible productivity requirements with their supervisor, but they were told it was Yakima Regional's expectation that nurses finish their five or six stats in an 8-hour working day.

¶5 In April 2015, WSNA filed suit against Yakima Regional on behalf of 28 home health and hospice nurses seeking damages under the Washington Minimum Wage Act¹ and the industrial welfare act² for unpaid working hours, overtime hours, and missed meal periods.

B. Procedural History and Trial

¶6 In 2017, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. WSNA sought partial summary judgment on liability, and Yakima Regional sought summary dismissal on the grounds that WSNA lacked associational standing to bring its claim. The trial court denied both motions, but it certified its order denying Yakima Regional's motion for summary judgment for interlocutory discretionary review under RAP 2.3(b)(4) because there was substantial ground for a difference of opinion on the standing issue. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for discretionary review because more factual development was necessary to determine what evidence WSNA would rely on to establish damages.

¶7 A nine-day bench trial began in January 2018. At trial, nine nurses testified about the work environment, the hours they worked without pay, and missed meal periods. Some nurses testified that they worked one or two hours of overtime each day, while others testified they worked up to six hours of overtime each day in order to finish documentation. The nurses also testified that they rarely got a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period. They told their supervisors repeatedly about this required overtime work: verbally, in arranged meetings, in exit interviews, and in notations on their daily time sheets. Despite this notice, Yakima Regional supervisors often denied the nurses’ requests for overtime, and the policies surrounding reporting time did not change.

¶8 WSNA presented a damages calculation chart that was created by its expert, Dr. Jeffrey Munson. This chart contained the total amount of back pay and the total interest owed to the nurses, assuming varying rates of off-the-clock hours worked and varying rates of missed meal breaks. All of the data that Dr. Munson used to develop the chart came from Yakima Regional's payroll wages and hours records. However, in order to use the chart and come to a final damage calculation, the court itself would need to decide the average hours of overtime the nurses worked and the percentage of meal periods the nurses missed. The court was required to weigh the testimony of the nurses and make these two separate rate determinations as the finder of fact.

¶9 In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court held that WSNA had associational standing to bring the claims. Based on the nurses’ testimony, the court found that the nurses missed 90 percent of their statutorily mandated meal periods. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 2891. The court also found that "[f]rom April 21, 2012, through April 1, 2014, the nurses were not paid for 22% of the hours they worked" and "[f]rom April 2, 2014 through August 31, 2017, the nurses were not paid for 37.5% of the hours they worked." CP at 2893.³ The court found total damages to be $1,447,758.09 and awarded WSNA attorney fees and court costs. Finally, the court ruled that Yakima Regional knowingly and willfully deprived the nurses of their pay and ordered double damages pursuant to RCW 49.52.070.

¶10 Yakima Regional appealed, arguing, among other things, that WSNA lacked associational standing; WSNA cross appealed.⁴ Division Three of the Court of Appeals certified the case for transfer to this court, which we accepted.

II. ANALYSIS

¶11 This decision does not condone Yakima Regional's employment practices that the nurses testified to throughout trial. The nurses’ claims are not without merit. WSNA chose to bring these claims using associational standing, which has limitations under our case law. Associational standing requires that damages be certain, easily ascertainable, and within the knowledge of the defendant. We conclude that WSNA's claim cannot survive this test for damages. We decline to make an exception to this test in order to allow representative testimony to establish damages in wage and hour claims.

A. Associational Standing

¶12 WSNA lacks associational standing in this case because the damages established through representative testimony are not certain, easily ascertainable, and within the knowledge of the defendant. In general, cases should be brought and defended by the parties whose rights and interests are at stake. Riverview Cmty. Grp. v. Spencer & Livingston , 181 Wash.2d 888, 893, 337 P.3d 1076 (2014). However, an association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when "(1) the members of the organization would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests that the organization seeks to protect are germane to its purpose; and (3) neither claim asserted nor relief requested requires the participation of the organization's individual members." Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1789 v. Spokane Airports , 146 Wash.2d 207, 213-14, 45 P.3d 186 (2002) (citing Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm'n , 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S. Ct. 2434, 53 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1977) ). The first two prongs of our associational standing test are constitutional. Id. at 215, 45 P.3d 186. The third prong is prudential and is designed to serve administrative convenience and efficiency. Id. The parties do not dispute that the first two prongs are satisfied here.

¶13 Under the third prong, the type of relief a plaintiff-association seeks often dictates whether an individual member's participation is necessary. Hunt , ...