June 3, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 154


June 02, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 01, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 31, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Washington Jury Awards “Perceived” Whistleblower $1 Million

In a jury verdict issued on March 26, 2015, a supervisor for the nation’s largest ferry system was awarded $1 million because the jury concluded that his employer demoted him as an act of retaliation in violation of the Washington State Employee Whistleblower Protection Act because he was believed—albeit inaccurately—to be a whistleblower.  Chaussee v. State of Washington, Wash. Super. Ct., No. 11-2-01884-6, 3/26/15. 

State of Washington SealPlaintiff, a carpenter shop foreman for the Washington State Ferry System, informed his supervisor of a co-worker’s alleged practice of attending baseball games and practices in a state-owned vehicle while the co-worker was on-the-clock.  While the supervisor said he would conduct an investigation, he failed to do so.  Two months later, an anonymous whistleblower—someone other than Plaintiff—filed a whistleblower complaint regarding the same conduct.  After that complaint, Plaintiff began receiving performance-related warnings, allegedly based on his supervisor’s belief that Plaintiff was the anonymous whistleblower.  Following a year-long investigation, the co-worker was suspended.  However, Plaintiff was ultimately demoted, purportedly for the performance issues that arose only after the whistleblower complaint.

Plaintiff brought a claim under the Washington State Employee Whistleblower Protection Act, which protects both actual and “perceived” whistleblowers (defined as “[a]n employee who is perceived by the employer as reporting, whether they did or not, alleged improper governmental action … .”).  At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that Plaintiff had, in fact, been retaliated against for being perceived as a whistleblower, and awarded Plaintiff $1 million.

Our loyal readers will recall that we recently posted on an arguably similar instance where a California court found in favor of a “whistleblower” who never even blew the whistle.  Though these cases may appear as outliers at first blush, they serve to signal that the risks continue to grow for employers and any adverse employment actions that may be based on or related to actual or even perceived whistleblowing will, at a minimum, be subject to serious scrutiny.

© 2023 Proskauer Rose LLP. National Law Review, Volume V, Number 105

About this Author

Steven J Pearlman, Labor Employment Law Firm, Proskauer Law firm

Steven Pearlman is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-head of the firm's Whistleblowing & Retaliation Group, resident in the Chicago office. Steven’s practice focuses on defending complex employment litigation involving claims of discrimination and harassment, wage-and-hour laws and breaches of restrictive covenants (e.g., non-competition agreements). He has successfully tried cases to verdict before judges and juries in Illinois, Florida and California, and defended what is reported to be the largest Illinois-only class action in the history of the U.S....

Amanda C. Wiley, Labor, Employment, Attorney, Proskauer, Law Firm

Amanda C. Wiley is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department, resident in the Chicago office.

Amanda’s practice consists of assisting employers in all types of employment-related litigation and counseling, ranging from single plaintiff harassment and discrimination cases to large, complex collective and class actions. She has represented clients in proceedings in federal and state courts and administrative agencies in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Nebraska, Maine and other states. She represents clients at all stages of state and federal law claims,...