Federal District Court Rules on Retroactivity Clause

One of the many troubling aspects of the legislation passed last session that expanded the definition of disability under the Washington Law on Discrimination was its retroactivity clause. Typically, statutory amendments are prospective, applying only after their effective date, but the Legislature specifically provided that the amended definition would be retroactive.

Back in July of 2006, the Washington Supreme Court (in McClarty v. Totem Electric, 157 Wn.2d 214, 228) adopted the definition of disability set forth in the federal Americans with Disability Act. This was good news for employers, because it reduced the scope of potential disability claims and provided more certainty and consistency with respect to the analysis regarding what constitutes a disability.

Then last session, the legislature passed SSB 5340, which specifically rejected the McCarty definition in favor of a new, expanded definition. In addition, the law explicitly stated that the new definition would apply to all causes of action that occurred before July 6, 2006 (the date of the McClarty decision) and to those that will occur after the effective date of the act, July 22, 2007.

This has caused uncertainty regarding pending discrimination cases, as attorneys scrambled to determine which definition would control the outcome of those cases.

Believing the new definition would have an impact on a pending disability claim, a school district filed a request asking the courts to clarify which law would apply. In its ruling dated July 27, the district court for the Western District of Washington held that the amendments in SSB 5340 could not be applied retroactively, because they overrode a prior judicial decision, violating the separation of powers doctrine of the State Constitution. Vargas v. Stanwood-Camano Island School District.

This may not be the last word on this issue, however, since it is just one decision in one federal court. Assuming it’s upheld and followed, however, it would mean the broader definition of disability would apply only to disability cases involving conduct that took place after July 22, 2007.

Update: Clearly this case was not the last word on the issue. A very recent order came down in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington – Delaplaine v. United Airlines, No. C06-0989. The Court held that SB 5340 could be applied retroactively. This decision agreed with another decision by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (Breeden v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp.) Since case law continues to evolve on this issue, please watch for further developments.

 
[ return to top ]  [ next article ]