Smith v. Clover Park School District No 400
Opinion
1 2 3
4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 KRISTI SMITH, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05767 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR 9 v. RECONSIDERATION 10 CLOVER PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 400, 11 Defendant. 12 13
14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order 15 (Dkt. # 66), Dkt. # 67, and Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider/Clarify Motions in Limine Order, 16 Dkt. # 69. Having considered the submissions in support of and in opposition to the motions, the 17 applicable law, and the balance of the case file, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, and 18 GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s motion. 19 Regarding Plaintiff’s motion, the Court concludes that footnote 12 of Plaintiff’s Response 20 to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment sufficiently preserves her FMLA and WFLA 21 retaliation claims. See Dkt. # 34 at 19 n. 12. Further, the Court DENIES Defendant’s summary 22 judgment motion with respect to these claims, as there remain issues of fact as to whether 23 Defendant took adverse actions against Plaintiff for exercising her rights under the 24 1 FMLA/WFLA or for opposing a practice made unlawful by the FMLA/WFLA. See 29 C.F.R. § 2 825.220(c); RCW 50A.40.010; 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(e).1 3 Also, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave under Rule 15(b)(1) to amend her complaint to 4 include a claim for liquidated damages under RCW 50A.40.030(4). Plaintiff included a claim 5 for liquidated damages under the FMLA in her complaint, see Dkt. # 1–1 at 12–13, and as such, 6 there can be no prejudice to Defendant if Plaintiff is also permitted to pursue liquidated damages 7 under the mirroring WFLA. 8 Regarding Defendant’s motion, the Court clarifies that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 9 is granted only to the extent that Defendant seeks to use “evidence or argument that others 10 disliked Smith or her leadership style” as justification for their decisions to transfer certain duties 11 away from Plaintiff and/or to eliminate her position. The District has repeatedly conceded that 12 Smith’s performance (which included collaboration with and supervision of employees) played
13 no role in these decisions. See, e.g., Dkts. ## 20–1 at 115; 29 at 17; 43 at 27; 43 at 35. 14 The Court denies Defendant’s remaining requests. It also notes that Plaintiff’s Motion in 15 Limine No. 15 was granted without prejudice, meaning Defendant still may seek to introduce the 16 exhibits in question at trial. 17
18 1 Plaintiff appears to say that Defendant “retaliated” against her both for exercising her FMLA/WFLA rights and for opposing unlawful practices under the FMLA/WFLA. See Dkt. # 64 at 29– 19 35. The Court notes that the first claim is more properly characterized as an “interference” claim. See Bachelder v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112, 1124 (9th Cir. 20011) (“By their plain meaning, the 20 anti-retaliation or anti-discrimination provisions do not cover visiting negative consequences on an employee simply because he has used FMLA leave. Such action is, instead, covered under § 2615(a)(1), 21 the provision governing ‘Interference [with the] Exercise of rights.’” (internal citations omitted)). The Court acknowledges that the language of the statute, and related regulations and case law, is confusing 22 and at times conflates the two claims. See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) (“The Act's prohibition against interference prohibits an employer from discriminating or retaliating against an employee or prospective employee for having exercised or attempted to exercise FMLA rights.”). Moving forward, the Court will 23 characterize what Plaintiff calls her “retaliation—exercise of rights” claim as an “interference” claim. To avoid confusion with Plaintiff’s other FMLA/WFLA interference claims (regarding reinstatement to an 24 equivalent position following leave), the Court will refer to those claims as “reinstatement” claims. l Dated this 12th day of January, 2023. 2
4 John H. Chun United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smith v. Clover Park School District No 400 (Smith v. Clover Park School District No 400) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.