• Trial Advocacy
• Catastrophic Injury or Loss
• Sexual Abuse Litigation
• Appellate Advocacy
• Other Practices
• Representation of Plaintiffs
• Representative Clients
• Representative Cases

Representative Cases

Recent representative cases include:

Abel v. City of Algona

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and The King County Superior Court each recently awarded summary judgment to City of Algona on various claims brought by two former City of Algona police officers.  The police officers alleged an assortment of Constitutional violations, as well as state-law claims for breach of contract and negligent hire/supervision.  The District Court dismissed plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, and the King County Superior Court dismissed the remaining state-law claims.   Attorneys Patricia K. Buchanan, Sean D. Jackson and Rhianna M. Fronapfel represented the City of Algona.

Frisino v. Seattle School District

Summary Judgment Dismissal

King County Superior Court recently granted summary judgment to the Seattle School District dismissing all claims brought by a former teacher. The teacher alleged claims under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination including: failure to accommodate; disability discrimination; and retaliation. Plaintiff claimed damages in excess of $1.5 million. Plaintiff allegedly suffered from multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) and allergies to mold and other environmental irritants. After a multitude of accommodations culminating in a remediation project at the high school, plaintiff was ordered to return to work. When she failed to do so, she was terminated for job abandonment. The District moved for summary judgment pointing out that plaintiff could not make a prima facie case and further argued that the termination was a legitimate business decision for non-discriminatory reasons. The court agreed. Attorneys Patricia K. Buchanan and Scott H. Husbands represented the District in this matter.

King v. Kalama School District

Patterson Buchanan Defense Verdict

A federal jury unanimously vindicated the Kalama School District and Superintendent Jim Sutton on November 30, 2007 with a verdict in a case brought by a former disgruntled teacher, David King, who claimed age discrimination and retaliation for union activities. Seattle attorneys Mike Patterson and Don Austin of Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch & Kalzer represented the District and Sutton.

This case is significant because the District and Superintendent Sutton were defending administrative actions made to improve student performance and WASL test scores in keeping with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. The case illustrates the hazards of holding teachers accountable for their job performance. King, though trained as a music teacher, had been teaching math in recent years and had given Ds and Fs to more than 50% of his math students between 1995 and 2005. Kalama Middle and High School Principals Greg Rayl and Mike Hamilton brought this to King’s attention in a series of progressively critical evaluations informing King in no uncertain terms that he needed to be reaching all students, not just the ones who were easy to teach.

Hamilton was concerned about raising math WASL scores and felt that if more than 50% of King’s students were getting Ds and Fs in King’s classes that they were not learning enough to put them in the best position to eventually pass the math WASL. When Hamilton saw no improvement in King’s teaching, he switched King’s course schedule to teaching history instead of math. King had successfully taught history in the past and enjoyed history. Hamilton also changed King’s classrooms so that he would be teaching in the area of the building where most of his students were.

King sued alleging that the evaluations, schedule change, and room change were in retaliation against him because he had been union president and because he was over the age of 40. King demanded $461,450.00 plus punitive damages, suing both the District and the Superintendent, even though he had no direct evidence that the Superintendent was retaliating or discriminating against him.

The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that there was no credibility to King’s allegations, and that Hamilton and the District were acting reasonably in the best interests of students.