Legal Opinion

Scannell v. City of Seattle

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1983No. 47960-7PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*702Dore, J.

Seventeen intermittent employees of the City of Seattle appeal the trial court's summary judgment order dismissing their case, holding that they were not entitled to vacation pay. We reverse, holding the City is liable to intermittent employees for vacation compensation, pursuant to the Seattle City Charter.

The City of Seattle classifies employees as permanent full time, permanent part time, intermittent and temporary. Although all these positions are within the City's classified service, intermittent employees are not protected by civil service rules and procedures and do not receive…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Amburn v. DalyWashington Supreme Court · 1972
  2. State Ex Rel. Public Disclosure Commission v. RainsWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  3. State v. SponburghWashington Supreme Court · 1974
  4. In Re Kurtzman's EstateWashington Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Vallet v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1969

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Clark v. PacificorpWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Tennant v. RoysCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1986
  4. State v. MathersCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
  5. Gorman v. Pierce CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API