Opinions: claims for wrongful termination and discrimination in jury selection

Posted on April 1, 2010 by Michael Reitz

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 ….”

Tags: , , , , , ,

Today at the Court - October 13, 2009

Posted on October 13, 2009 by Jonathan Bechtle

The Court will hear four cases today, two in the morning and two in the afternoon. (Docket, briefs)

In the morning session, starting at 9:00 a.m., the Court will hear arguments for:

In re the Personal Restraint Petition of James Grantham, No. 82194-1. This case is up from Division Two Court of Appeals, and concerns whether the Department of Corrections violated Grantham's due process rights by refusing to give him access to evidence used against him in a prison disciplinary hearing.

Grantham is an inmate at McNeil Island prison, and was charged with violating rules when a correctional officer was caught smuggling tobacco and marijuana to him. The evidence against him included a report of suspicious comments he was overheard making to his brother on the phone. Grantham was given notice of the disciplinary hearing where he was charged, but the notice didn't contain the dates and times of his alleged violations. He also requested a copy of the phone record on which the charges were based, which was refused. He appeals for violation of due process due to this lack of evidence.

The Court of Appeals denied Grantham's petition, but the Supreme Court granted discretionary review.

State v. Rhone, No. 80037-5. This case is on appeal from Division Two Court of Appeals and originated in Pierce County Superior Court. It concerns whether using a peremptory challenge to remove the sole minority member of a jury is racially discriminatory on its face without any other evidence.

Rhone, a black man, was charged with robbery and drug possession. The jury selected to hear his trial contained only two black members. One was dismissed "for cause" with the agreement of both parties, but the second was excused with a peremptory (without cause) challenge by the State. Rhone challenged the panel, arguing that the peremptory challenge showed racial discrimination on its face. The trial court disagreed based on the lack of other evidence of intent to discriminate. The appeals court also disagreed with Rhone.

In the afternoon session, starting at 1:30 p.m., the Court will hear arguments in:

State v. Boss and Pelts, No. 81897-5. On appeal from Division One Court of Appeals, this case originated in King County Superior Court. It concerns whether the defendant was prejudiced by two errors made by the judge in his instructions to the jury.

Child Protective Services obtained an order to take custody of Cynthia Boss's daughter due to "imminent risk of harm," but Boss refused to cooperate and moved to Texas. She was eventually found and charged with custodial interference. One element of this crime is that the other party (CPS in this case) has a legal right to the child, which CPS showed by offering the original order giving them custody of the child. The judge told the jury that CPS had a legal right to the girl, but Boss argued this was in error because the validity of the order had not been proven. The Court of Appeals agreed with Boss, but held it was a harmless error.

Boss also argues that her knowledge of CPS' legal right to custody is an element of the crime, but the judge did not include that in his instruction to the jury.

In re the Dependency of Colton Singleton, No. 81720-1. On appeal from Division Three Court of Appeals, this case originated in Ferry County Superior Court. It concerns whether there is sufficient evidence to terminate parental rights.

Amy Singleton has a son diagnosed with ADHD and other behavioral problems. She has a history of drug and alcohol abuse and is under the supervision of social workers. She continues to have substance abuse issues, although evidence was introduced that she is improving. The state filed a third party custody action and the court terminated her parental rights. She argues that the evidence is insufficient to justify the court's determination.

Tags: , , , ,