Legal Opinion

Blomster v. Nordstrom, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided November 6, 2000No. 45836-1-IPublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.

Washington’s Family Leave Act, chapter 49.78 RCW , does not permit a private right of action by an employee for an alleged breach of its provisions. Nevertheless, an employee can make a prima facie case for constructive discharge where the employer’s policy, consistent with the Family Leave Act, guarantees the right of the employee to return to the same or equivalent position after taking family leave, and the disputed facts could support an inference that the employer failed to honor that promise. The employee’s claim for constructive discharge should not have been dismissed on summary…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. PowellWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Grimwood v. University of Puget Sound, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Public Utility District No. 1 v. Washington Public Power Supply SystemWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Bird-Johnson Corp. v. Dana Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Bulaich v. AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMSWashington Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Kaech v. Lewis County PUDCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  2. Kaech v. Lewis County Public Utility District No. 1Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  3. Korslund v. DynCorp Tri-Cities Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  4. Estate of Bordon v. Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  5. Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities ServicesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004

9 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