RNWLG Wins Appeal Underscoring Plaintiffs’ Rights to Their Day in Court
Matthew Z. Crotty and Asti M. Gallina recently achieved a substantial victory in a complex case involving the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The case centered around a father who had filed a lawsuit against a private school for retaliation. The father alleged that the children’s school had retaliated against him due to his advocacy efforts on behalf of his special-needs children.
We are happy to share a significant legal triumph for our client at the Court of Appeals, which highlights not only the importance of protecting individuals who stand up for their rights but also the crucial role of ensuring fair judicial processes.
Case Overview
Matthew Z. Crotty and Asti M. Gallina recently achieved a substantial victory in a complex case involving the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The case centered around a father who had filed a lawsuit against a private school for retaliation. The father alleged that the children’s school had retaliated against him due to his advocacy efforts on behalf of his special-needs children.
The Legal Battle
The school moved to dismiss the father’s lawsuit, arguing that the claims were barred by issue preclusion, which bars re-litigation of issues already determined in a prior proceeding. The school contended that the father had previously raised similar retaliation arguments in a family law modification proceeding concerning his parenting plan. Although the family law court did not explicitly rule on the retaliation claims, it had awarded educational and medical decision-making authority to the mother and, indirectly, criticized the father’s advocacy efforts.
The trial court agreed with the school’s argument, leading to a dismissal of the father’s WLAD claims and, astonishingly, imposing sanctions exceeding $145,000 against the father and labeling his lawsuit as frivolous.
The Court of Appeals Ruling
Our firm took the case to the Court of Appeals, where we challenged both the dismissal of the lawsuit and the imposition of sanctions. We argued that the trial court’s application of issue preclusion was incorrect and that the sanctions were unwarranted.
The Court of Appeals agreed with our position, delivering an important clarification on the reach of issue preclusion to civil rights cases:
Issue Preclusion Rejected: The appellate court clarified that issue preclusion did not apply in this case. It noted that, while the father had raised similar issues in both proceedings, the contexts were fundamentally different. The family law court’s decision focused on the father’s communication style rather than the content of his protected advocacy. Therefore, the WLAD lawsuit, which addressed whether his communications were indeed protected, was not precluded.
Sanctions Reversed: The Court of Appeals also reversed the trial court’s decision to award over $145,000 in sanctions. It found that the trial court had abused its discretion by deeming the father’s lawsuit frivolous. This reversal underscores the importance of allowing legitimate claims to be heard and adjudicated fairly without undue penalization.
What This Means
For the father, his case is not over. But this victory means he will get the opportunity to have his day in court.
This appellate victory is also a significant step forward for individuals advocating for special-needs children and others standing up for their rights under WLAD. It affirms that legal protections for advocacy are robust and that procedural fairness must be upheld, even in complex legal battles.
Our firm is proud to represent our client in this crucial matter, and we are committed to continuing our work in defending the rights of those who face retaliation for their advocacy. For more information on RNWLG’s appellate practice group, please contact Asti Gallina at amg@rnwlg.com.
RNWLG Represents Oregon State University in Pac-12 Litigation
Oregon State University (“OSU”) retained RNWLG attorneys, Matthew Mensik and Max Archer, as its local counsel in the litigation it filed with Washington State University (“WSU”) against the Pac-12 Conference, the then-Conference Commissioner, George Kliavkoff, and the University of Washington (“UW”), which intervened in the litigation shortly after its commencement. OSU and WSU commenced the lawsuit in Whitman County Superior Court (see Case No. 23-2-00273-38).
April 1, 2024 - Oregon State University (“OSU”) retained RNWLG attorneys, Matthew Mensik and Max Archer, as its local counsel in the litigation it filed with Washington State University (“WSU”) against the Pac-12 Conference, the then-Conference Commissioner, George Kliavkoff, and the University of Washington (“UW”), which intervened in the litigation shortly after its commencement. OSU and WSU commenced the lawsuit in Whitman County Superior Court (see Case No. 23-2-00273-38).
Judge Gary Libey granted OSU and WSU’s joint motion for a temporary restraining order on September 11, 2023, which immediately restrained Former Commissioner Kliavkoff from calling any Pac-12 board meetings pending a subsequent hearing addressing whether the Pac-12 Conference’s bylaws prohibited the 10 other member schools from participating in the Pac-12 Conference’s governance due to their decision to leave the Conference.
Judge Libey granted OSU and WSU’s motion for preliminary injunction at a subsequent hearing on November 14, 2023. In so doing, Judge Libey held the Pac-12 Conference’s bylaws precluded the 10 departing member schools from voting on or otherwise deciding the future of the Pac-12 Conference. At the hearing, Judge Libey also denied a motion to dismiss the litigation.
The Pac-12 Conference, Former Commissioner Kliavkoff, and UW subsequently sought discretionary review of Judge Libey’s rulings by the Washington State Supreme Court. Their motion for discretionary review was denied, however, by a Special En Banc Conference on December 15, 2023. The litigation was settled out of court and the litigation was dismissed on March 28, 2024.
RNWLG is proud of the opportunity to represent Oregon State University.
More information on the case can be found below:
RNWLG Prevails at Trial in Spokane County Will Contest Case
RNWLG Prevails at Trial in Spokane County Will Contest Case. On January 22, 2023, Judge Plese issued a 20-plus-page ruling upholding Naomi White’s 2020 Will and concluding that Naomi White executed her 2020 Will free of any undue influence from the child benefiting from the changes thereto.
January 23, 2024 - In 2020, a 98-year-old mother, Naomi White, executed a new Will that reduced the inheritance of one of her children and increased the inheritance of another. Following Naomi White’s death in 2021, the child whose inheritance was reduced filed a TEDRA petition against Naomi White’s Estate in Spokane County Superior Court. In his TEDRA petition, the child requested an order from the Court setting aside and invalidating his mother’s 2020 Will. The child alleged that Naomi White lacked testamentary capacity when she executed the 2020 Will and that she was affected by the undue influence of her other son who was benefited by the changes made in the 2020 Will. The Personal Representative of the Estate of Naomi White retained Matthew A. Mensik, Max K. Archer, and their law firm, RNWLG, to defend the Estate in the TEDRA Petition and to ensure the 2020 Will was upheld.
Prior to trial, Matthew Mensik and Max Archer filed, argued, and prevailed on a motion to dismiss the petitioning child’s testamentary incapacity claim. After the dismissal of the incapacity claim, the petitioning child and Naomi White’s Estate proceeded to try the remaining undue influence claim before the Honorable Judge Annette S. Plese. The trial occurred over the course of four days in October 2023. At trial, Matthew Mensik and Max Archer took the testimony of and cross-examined numerous witnesses, including attorneys, a medical doctor, and local and out-of-state family members.
On January 22, 2023, Judge Plese issued a 20-plus-page ruling upholding Naomi White’s 2020 Will and concluding that Naomi White executed her 2020 Will free of any undue influence from the child benefiting from the changes thereto. For more information on our litigation practice, including our TEDRA dispute practice, please contact Matt Mensik at mam@rnwlg.cm.
Manina et. al. v. Manina, et. al.
Attorneys Matt Crotty and Kacy Tellessen obtained a $4.5 million jury verdict in a multi-defendant sexual abuse and negligence case.
Attorneys Matt Crotty and Kacy Tellessen obtained a $4.5 million jury verdict in a multi-defendant sexual abuse and negligence case against involving sexual abuse of a minor child and the alleged failures of that minor child’s counselor and Guardian ad Litem’s (GAL) failure to properly and timely report the abuse to law enforcement. The Manina v. Manina Complaint includes assault and battery claims against Scott Manina and negligence claims against Jane Doe’s former counselor and GAL. On July 10, 2024, a jury awarded Jane Doe $4.5 million in damages against Scott Manina. The claim against the counselor was resolved. The claim against the GAL was dismissed by the trial court but will be subject to an appeal.
RNWLG Defends First Amendment Protections
January 11, 2024 - RNWLG represented a the parent company of a news outlet and media company defending against claims of defamation and violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.
January 11, 2024 - RNWLG represented a the parent company of a news outlet and media company defending against claims of defamation and violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. At the trial court, the defendant asserted its rights under Washington’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act and sought summary dismissal of the claims. The trial court dismissed the CPA claim but held that the UPEPA did not apply to the defamation claims. The Washington Court of Appeals for Division III issued its published decision upholding the dismissal of the CPA claim and reversing the trial court on the defamation claim holding that UPEPA did apply to the defamation claims. The Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings and ordered the trial court to impose attorneys’ fees against the plaintiff in favor of the defendant.
Hamilton v. Newport Hospital & Health Services
Obtained finding that current and former CEO of hospital retaliated against whistleblower and full back pay following one week trial.
01-2023-GOV-00038 (OAH 2023)
Obtained finding that current and former CEO of hospital retaliated against whistleblower and full back pay following one week trial.
Boyd v. Acro, Inc. et. al.
Obtained $530,750.00 jury verdict in sexual harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge case.
2-21-00201-13 (Grant Co. Sup. Ct. 2023)
Obtained $530,750.00 jury verdict in sexual harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge case.
O’Kell v. U.S. Department of Interior
Obtained $1,683,351 verdict following two-week ADEA age discrimination and retaliation trial.
598 F.Supp.3d 1032 (E.D. Wn. 2022)
Obtained $1,683,351 verdict following two-week ADEA age discrimination and retaliation trial.
Waite v. Gonzaga University
Represented Gonzaga University in federal and state law discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation lawsuit that sought $5,000,000 in damages. Obtained complete defense verdict following week long jury trial.
2:17-cv-00416-SAB (E.D. Wash. 2019)
Represented Gonzaga University in federal and state law discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation lawsuit that sought $5,000,000 in damages. Obtained complete defense verdict following week long jury trial.