Facts: Petitioner Michael Segaline filed suit against the respondent Department of Labor and Industries in the Superior Court for Thurston County after the Department of Labor and Industries barred Segaline from its East Wenatchee office and summoned the police when he appeared as a result of Segaline allegedly behaving in a course and threatening manner toward Department of Labor and Industries employees. Segaline alleged that the Department of Labor and Industries had negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him, engaged in malicious prosecution, negligently supervised its employees, and violated his civil rights and subsequently amended his complaint to also name Department of Labor and Industries employee Alan Croft as a respondent. The trial court dismissed all of Segaline’s claims, ruling that Washington Revised Code §4.24.510, which immunizes persons communicating complaints and/or information to local, state, and federal agencies from civil liability, granted the Department of Labor and Industries immunity and that Segaline’s claim against Croft was untimely. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Segaline appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Is the Department of Labor and Industries a person for purposes of §4.24.510 and therefore entitled to immunity?

Was Segaline’s complaint against Croft timely?

Conclusion: Justice Sanders’ opinion for the Court ruled that a government agency such as the Department of Labor and Industries that communicates a complaint and/or information to another government agency is not a person under §4.24.510 and therefore lacks immunity against civil liability arising from such communication as the intent of §4.24.510 was to protect individuals’ right to freedom of speech under the 1^st Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I §5 of the Washington State Constitution and government agencies do not have free speech rights. The Court also held that Segaline’s complaint against Croft was untimely as Segaline was aware of the role Croft had played in the Department of Labor and Industries barring Segaline from its offices and seeking to have him arrested for trespassing at the time of his initial complaint against the Department of Labor and Industries and therefore lacked good cause to subsequently amend his complaint to include Croft. Thus, the Court reversed the trial court’s decision with regard to Segaline’s claim against the Department of Labor and Industries, remanding the case to the trial court, and affirmed its dismissal of Segaline’s claim against Croft.

Docket No. 81931-9 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 35823-9)

Petitioner: Michael Segaline

(Counsel: Jean Marie Schiedler-Brown)

Respondent: Department of Labor and Industries

(Counsel: Kenneth Douglas Orcutt and Jay Douglas Geck)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, August 19th, 2010

Prevailing Party: Michael Segaline (Petitioner)

Vote: 5-4

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-)

Madsen
(Concurs)

Johnson
(Dissent)

Alexander

Sanders
(Majority)

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens