Jim Cline
In Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Examiner Greer dismissed the complaint, holding that the Employer did not discriminate against the Complainant, who alleged she was terminated after communicating her intent to join a grievance. However, Examiner Greer found the Employer’s reasons for termination “were not pretextual for discrimination, nor substantially motivated by union animus.”
Complainant, a licensed foster parent, was a Social Services Specialist with the Employer. In early 2020, Child Protective Services (“CPS”) informed the Employer that Complainant was under investigation for allegations of child abuse and neglect in her foster parenting role. Complainant was placed on alternative assignment pending the outcome of the CPS investigation.
The CPS investigation concluded with a founded finding, meaning that CPS determined the allegations against Complainant were more likely than not to have occurred. This finding disqualified Complainant from performing her regular job duties, so she remained on alternative assignment until her termination in late 2020, after criminal charges were also pending. The Employer’s given reasons for terminating Complainant were the finding of unauthorized access to a CPS case database, which Complainant had used to view her own foster parent profile and CPS case. Shortly before her termination though, Complainant had notified the Employer she planned to join a grievance.
Complainant alleged that the Employer had discriminated against her after she communicated her intent to engage in a protected union activity. She pointed to flaws in the Employer’s investigation, including that the founded finding allegation was not contained in an initial draft of the termination letter. Complainant also argued that inconsistent testimony regarding the true basis for the termination decision supported her argument that the Employer had discriminated against her.
The Employer, however, according to the hearing examiner proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for firing Complainant, including Complainant’s own admission that she had wrongfully accessed the CPS database. Further, the established finding and criminal charges relating to the allegations supported the termination decision, as those allegations disqualified the Complainant from doing her job. As well, the predisciplinary letter – which was issued prior to Complainant’s communication about joining the grievance – included the same allegations mentioned in the termination letter, suggesting that the founded finding and pending criminal charges were termination considerations prior to Complainant’s protected activity.
Although Examiner Greer found that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination by communicating to the Employer her intent to engage in a protected activity prior to her termination only two weeks later, there was no evidence that the Employer was motivated by union animus in its decision. Examiner Greer reasoned the inconsistent testimony was likely because there was a belief that Complainant had committed the alleged actions, not that there was discrimination regarding joining a grievance. Further, evidence supported that the offered reasons for termination had been named prior to Complainant’s communicated intent about joining the grievance. Thus, Examiner Greer dismissed the complaint.
This wasn’t a close case. Filing a grievance and claiming the protection of union activity status doesn’t usually work when it follows a serious work rule violation leading to criminal charges.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Discrimination and Retaliation and Restrictions on Union Activity**
