IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
WAYNE GODING,
DIVISION ONE
Respondent/Cross-Appellant,
No. 72890-3-1
v.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF
KING COUNTY; ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO PUBLISH OPINION
Respondent,
KING COUNTY, a municipal
corporation; KING COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE, a department
of King County,
Appellants/Cross-Respondents.
The appellant/cross-respondent King County having filed a motion to
publish opinion, and the hearing panel having reconsidered its prior CO
determination and finding that the opinion will be of precedential value; now,
therefore, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the unpublished opinion filed December 14, 2015, shall be
published and printed in the Washington Appellate Reports.
Done this [f^ day of January, 2016.
FOR THE COURT:
^ >S~y~
:--> c^c
en ~*':
CD
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON rq rn
t .;>-.
—
•cr
:'-"'
WAYNE GODING,
DIVISION ONE 7^ r
Respondent/Cross-Appellant, V?
~-. r
No. 72890-3-1 ro O --
It" ~
v.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF
KING COUNTY; PUBLISHED OPINION
Respondent,
KING COUNTY, a municipal
corporation; KING COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE, a department
of King County,
Appellants/Cross-Respondents. FILED: December 14, 2015
Dwyer, J. —Under applicable civil service law, when the county sheriff
imposes a severe sanction—such as suspension without pay—upon a
commissioned deputy the disciplinary decision must be made "in good faith for
cause."1 In such a circumstance, the disciplined employee may request that the
local civil service commission review the disciplinary decision in order to ensure
that the sheriffs action complied with the legal standard. If the civil service
commission upholds the sheriffs action, the disciplined employee may seek
judicial review of the commission's decision. This review, however, is extremely
limited. The court may not disturb the decision of the commission unless that
1 RCW 41.14.120.
No. 72890-3-1/2
decision was made arbitrarily or capriciously.2 And where the commission's
decision is "made with due consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing," its decision is not, as a matter of law, arbitrary or capricious.3
In this case, as a sanction for work-related misconduct, the King County
Sheriff imposed a one-day suspension without pay, coupled with a reassignment
to a less desirable detail, upon Deputy Wayne Goding. After a hearing, the civil
service commission upheld the sheriffs action. Goding sought review in the
superior court, which reversed the commission's decision. Given that the record
makes clear that the commission duly considered the evidence presented atthe
hearing before it, the commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in
upholding the sheriffs action. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the
superior court and reinstate the decision of the civil service commission.
I
Goding was employed as ashuttle deputy in the warrants unit of the
sheriffs office. As a shuttle deputy, Goding, together with his colleague Deputy
Bruce Matthews, was responsible for transporting inmates. This sometimes
involved shuttling inmates to and from the jail and a hospital.
On March 27, 2012, Sheriffs Sergeant Michael Porter sent an e-mail to
several employees, including Goding, discussing "some 'friction' recently
between the jail staff and our staff who work the transport shuttle." In the e-mail,
Porter instructed Goding and the otheremployees that,
*firnia v. Metzler. 33Wn. App. 223, 226, 653 P.2d 1346 (1982).
3state ax rel. Perry v Citv of Seattle. 69 Wn.2d 816, 821, 420 P.2d 704 (1966).
No. 72890-3-1/3
Iexpect any of our people working on the shuttle run to above all
be courteous and professional in all contacts with jail staff.
Anything less than a professional attitude and courtesywill not be
tolerated regardless of the perceived "provocation."
Follow the iail staff directions unless they make a request that is
unsafe or illegal.
Rather than getting into a conflict with jail staff about what you feel
is "not your job", just do what they ask, and bring it to my attention
later if you feel they are asking you to do something that is not
appropriate for whatever reason. Iwill be meeting with the ITR
[Intake, Transfer, and Release] sergeant at the jail weekly to work
out any issues that may come up regarding roles and
responsibilities. We will also expect the same level of professional
courtesy on the part of the jail staff, and Iexpect to be notified
promptly if there are issues regarding their conduct.
At the civil service commission hearing, Sheriffs Captain Joseph Hodgson
recalled that in March 2012, Porter came to his office to notify him that "[tjhere
was some friction between Sheriffs Office personnel and jail staff that needed
some attention."
Over time, Hodgson noticed that Goding and Matthews "seemed to be the
focus of the complaints" from the jail. In fact, during the summer of 2012,
Hodgson received two separate complaints—one involving Matthews and the
other involving Goding—from employees of the King County Department of Adult
and Juvenile Detention alleging that Goding and Matthews failed to properly
comply with requests to complete inmate booking paperwork.4 The complaint