Opinions: claims for wrongful termination and discrimination in jury selection
Among the opinions released by the Supreme Court today:
Renner v. City of Marysville, No. 81959-9 (briefs and argument). Marc Renner was fired from his job as Network Administrator for the City of Marysville. The city cited misconduct and insubordination for the termination; Renner claimed he was fired for joining a union. Renner sued for wrongful termination, but failed to include 1) a specific damage amount, and 2) all of his addresses for the prior six months. The City successfully moved to dismiss the case for failure to comply with the filing requirements.
The Supreme Court, with Justice Charles Johnson writing, ruled in Renner’s favor and held that Renner “substantially complied” with the claim filing statute. Chief Justice Barbara Madsen filed a separate concurrence finding that Renner substantially complied in this particular case, but she cautioned that “in a given case simply stating the name of the claim without much more does not serve the purpose of former RCW 4.96.020(3).”
Justice Mary Fairhust dissented. “In the name of liberal construction and substantial compliance, the majority distorts the amount requirement of the claim filing statute,” she wrote. “By holding that it is sufficient to merely list all the available classes of damages, the majority undermines the legislature’s intent to encourage settlement.”
State v. Rhone, No. 80037-5 (briefs and argument). Theodore Rhone, an African-American, was charged with robbery, possession of a controlled substance, unlawful possession of a firearm, and bailjumping. During jury selection there were two African-Americans in the 41-member pool, one of whom was dismissed for cause. The other, “juror 19,” was removed by the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge. The question in the case is whether a prosecutor’s peremptory challenge of the only African-American member in a trial of an African-American defendant amounts to a prima facie case of discrimination. The trial court concluded that Rhone had failed to establish a case of discrimination and did not require the prosecutor to provide a race-neutral explanation for his challenge of juror 19. Rhone was convicted on all counts.
The Supreme Court, with Justice Charles Johnson writing for a 4-vote lead opinion, upheld the conviction. The Court noted that under established case law, while a defendant has no right to a ‘jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race, the equal protection clause requires that a jury be composed of members who were selected by nondiscriminatory criteria.
The Court declined to recognize a bright line rule that a prima facie case of discriminatory purpose can be based on the mere dismissal of the only potential juror of the defendant’s race. The Court said Rhone could have presented a more complete argument to the trial court incorporating the totality of the circumstances involving the dismissal of juror 19, but that on appeal the Court will defer to the trial court’s ruling. Chief Justice Barbara Madsen filed a brief concurrence: “I agree with the lead opinion in this case. However, going forward, I agree with the rule advocated by the dissent.”
Justice Gerry Alexander, dissenting, wrote: “[W]e should adopt a bright line rule that a prima facie case of discrimination is established under [the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in] Batson when the sole remaining venire member of the defendant’s constitutionally cognizable racial group or the last remaining minority member of the venire is peremptorily challenged. I recognize that we have previously held that “a trial court is ‘not required to find a prima facie case [of discriminatory purpose] based on the dismissal of the only venire person from a constitutionally cognizable group, but they may, in their discretion, recognize a prima facie case in such instances.’” State v. Thomas, 166 Wn.2d 380, 397, 208 P.3d 1107 (2009) (quoting Hicks, 163 Wn.2d at 490) (alteration in original). Nevertheless, I am convinced that it makes sense to adopt the bright line rule ….”
