by John J. Tollefsen | Feb 6, 2015 | Blog, Civil Litigation WA, Constitution WA, Constitutional US, Consumer Protection WA
State v LG Electronics, Wash app, div 1, January 12, 2015:150112 State-v-LG-Electronics There has been ongoing debate in the courts over how much contact foreign manufacturers must have with a state for the state court to assert personal jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers and make the foreign manufactures defend in the state’s courts. The state’s power is constrained by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The foundational case is International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), in which the United States Supreme Court] held that a state may authorize its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-at-state defendant if the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with [the state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” The courts have subsequently developed two concepts of personal jurisdiction: (1) General Jurisdiction and (2) Specific Jurisdiction. General jurisdiction “permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant where the defendant’s ‘continuous corporate operations within a state (are] so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities.'” Daimler AG v Bauman, 134 S. Ct. at 754-55 (2014). Specific jurisdiction, which since International Shoe “has become the centerpiece of modern jurisdictional theory,” requires that suit arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum. Daimler, 134 S. ct. at 754-55. Specific Jurisdiction requires proof of three elements (1) minimum contacts; (2) action “arises” from minimum contacts; and (3) asserting jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. In State v LG...
by John J. Tollefsen | Oct 2, 2014 | Blog, Civil Litigation WA, Constitution WA, Constitutional US
Failla v FixtureOne Corporation (SC WA, October 2, 2014 Decision: 141002-Failla-v-FixtureOne In a dispute over unpaid wages, Washington State’s Supreme Court held that personal jurisdiction can exist over an out of state officer who had never set foot in Washington State. “[E]mploying a Washington resident to perform work in Washington constitutes the “transaction of any business within this state” under RCW 4.28.185( 1)( a)”. “we do not hold today that any corporate officer of a nonresident corporation may be subject to the state’s jurisdiction. Rather, Schutz was the officer directly responsible for the hiring, firing, promotion, and payment of Failla’s wages”. Schultz was sued under RCW 49.52.050 and .070. Together these statutes create a cause of action against [a]ny employer or officer, vice principal or agent ojany employer . .. who … [w]ilfully and with intent to deprive the employee of any part of his or her wages, [pays] any employee a lower wage than the wage such employer is obligated to pay such employee by any statute, ordinance, or contract. RCW 49.52.050(2) The sole dissent argued: “The United States Supreme Court has “consistently rejected attempts to satisfy the defendant-focused ‘minimum contacts’ inquiry by demonstrating contacts between the plaintiff (or third parties) and the forum State.” ld. (emphasis added). In fact, no matter how “significant the plaintiff’s contacts with the forum may be,” they cannot be decisive when determining whether the defendant had minimum contacts. ld. As described above, the employer’s only contacts with Washington were his contacts with the plairitiff. He took no actions related to this state. The majority’s inquiry is focused on the defendant’s contact with the plaintiff,...
by John J. Tollefsen | Apr 26, 2009 | Constitutional US, Employment Law WA, Whistleblowing US
Retaliation at hospital after discrimination whistleblowing Hollenback v. Shriners Hospitals for Children, — P.3d —-, 2009 WL 1152042 (Wash.App. Div. 3 Mar 17, 2009) (NO. 26626-5-III) In 1996, Cheryl Hollenback was hired as an at-will employee by Shriners Hospitals for Children in Spokane, Washington. At the time she was terminated in 2006, Ms. Hollenback held the position of Director of Patient Care Services, one of three top management positions at Shriners. Ms. Hollenback reported discrimination, harassment, and fear of retaliation to Shriners resulting from problems caused by Chief of Staff Dr. Ronny Ferguson’s romantic relationship with one of Ms. Hollenback’s subordinates. Ultimately, Dr. Ferguson resigned, and Shriners terminated Ms. Hollenback. Ms. Hollenback filed an action alleging retaliation, failure to provide specific treatment in specific situations, breach of contract, and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Shriners and dismissed all of Ms. Hollenback’s claims. Ms. Hollenback appeals. The appellate court reversed only the dismissal of the retaliation claim. RCW 49.60.210 prohibits employers from terminating employees for opposing acts violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). Ms. Hollenback needed to establish that: (1) she participated in a statutorily protected activity; (2) an adverse employment action was taken against her; and (3) her activity and the employer’s adverse action were causally connected. The conduct complained of need not actually be unlawful; the employee must establish only that he or she reasonably believed that the employer’s conduct was discriminatory. If the plaintiff proves a prima facie case, the evidentiary burden shifts to the employer to produce admissible evidence of a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason...
by John J. Tollefsen | Apr 22, 2009 | Blog, Constitutional US
Traditional Marriage and Freedom of Speech Church May Encourage Signing Petition Supporting Traditional Marriage Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church of East Helena, Inc. v. Unsworth (9th Cir.(Mont.) Feb 25, 2009) (NO. 06-35883) The Church assisted in an effort to collect signatures to place a constitutional initiative on the Montana ballot to amend the Montana constitution supporting traditional marriage by defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Less than fifty copies of the petition were copied on the Church’s copy machine using a member’s paper. Approximately twenty copies of the petition were placed in the Church’s foyer. The Church advertised an audio-visual simulcast entitled Battle for Marriage which included presentations by several prominent religious leaders on the topic of marriage. Although the Church often incorporates simulcasts in its services and all of the Church’s services are open to the public, the Battle for Marriage was the only simulcast for which the Church secured public service announcements on the radio. In addition, the Church photocopied and circulated flyers publicizing the event, the template for which had been provided to the Church by the organizers of the simulcast. The flyers were placed in the Church’s bulletin and the pastor encouraged members of the congregation to take the flyers to their workplace and “let people see it.” The flyers did not mention the constitutional initiative. Ninety-three people attended the Battle for Marriage event, well above the average attendance for a typical Sunday evening service at the Church. The congregation and members of the public watched the Battle for Marriage simulcast. In addition to televised presentations by several Christian ministers, the...
