Legal Opinion

Fraser v. Edmonds Community College

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided November 27, 2006No. 57473-6-IPublished

1Opinion of the Court

*53¶1 Robert Fraser was awarded damages based on a promissory estoppel claim against his employer. Fraser argues that these damages constitute “wages or salary owed” and, thus, he should have been awarded attorney fees under RCW 49.48.030. His employer argues that because the damages awarded were not contractually-owed wages or salary, but only reliance damages, the attorney fee statute does not apply. Because the damages here are analogous to damages in wrongful termination cases—where the attorney fee statute has been held to apply—we conclude that Fraser should have been awarded attorney fees…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bowles v. Department of Retirement SystemsWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Gaglidari v. Denny's Restaurants, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Hayes v. TrulockCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1988
  4. Dempere v. NelsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1994
  5. Hanson v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1986

4 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