Legal Opinion

Arnold v. City of Seattle

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 5, 2016No. 91742-6PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairhurst, J.

¶1 RCW 49.48.030 provides that employees are entitled to reasonable attorney fees from their employer or former employer “[i]n any action in which any person is successful in recovering judgment for wages or salary owed to him or her.” This case concerns whether a city of Seattle (City) employee who recovered wages from a Seattle Civil Service Commission (Commission) hearing is entitled to attorney fees under RCW 49.48.030 when the city code provides she may be represented in those proceedings only at her own expense. See Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 4.04.260(E). After Georgiana Arnold…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. City of Seattle v. EzeWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. International Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 46 v. City of EverettWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  4. City of Yakima v. International Ass'n of Fire FightersWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Thorgaard Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. County of KingWashington Supreme Court · 1967

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. David Essig v. Michael Lai And Veeny VanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019
  2. Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2018
  3. Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2018
  4. State of Washington v. The GEO Group IncDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2021
  5. Tammy Reeves v. Mason CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API