Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Court of Appeals takes under advisement request for interlocutory review in Case No. 62170-3 over 'always hiring' job postings
Loading...
Summary
Division 2 heard argument on whether the superior court erred by denying cross-motions for summary judgment and whether job postings that advertise ongoing hiring constitute a "specific available position" under the statute; the court took the motion for discretionary review under advisement and will issue a written ruling.
DIVISION 2, WASHINGTON STATE COURT OF APPEALS — A three-judge panel on March 18 heard argument in Case No. 62170-3 over whether the Court of Appeals should grant discretionary (interlocutory) review in a dispute about the meaning of a statutory requirement that a job posting be for a "specific available position." The court took the matter under advisement and said it will issue a ruling as soon as practical.
Petitioner—s attorney, Jim Peezel, told the panel the superior court—s refusal to enter a definitive ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment left the parties without a clear path. "The trial court denied both motions for summary judgment," Peezel said, adding that by not choosing between the motions the court committed "obvious error" and that further proceedings would be "useless" because the same issues would recur on appeal. He urged interlocutory review under rule 2.3(b)(1) on grounds of judicial economy.
That argument focused on whether the factual record matters when the posting language itself is undisputed. "The postings are what they are," Peezel said, arguing that "always hiring" or evergreen postings that list a job title, location and qualifications should be treated as advertising a specific available position as a matter of law.
Respondent counsel William Schroeder argued the opposite, saying whether a position was actually "available" is a question of fact that requires development of the record at trial. "We view that whether a job is available is a question of fact," Schroeder said, noting that the trial court—s denial of summary judgment suggested factual issues remain to be explored at trial.
The court pressed both sides on the evidence and legal standard. The panel asked whether depositions or other discovery showed any immediate, available position when the postings were made and noted that the applicable rule requires a showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists for summary judgment. Counsel discussed discrepancies in posted materials (including whether pay-rate information uploaded to a third-party site was actually included in the posting) and whether precedent the parties cited (including cases discussed as Branson and Shannon) supported taking discretionary review at this stage.
Petitioner—s remaining rebuttal reiterated that the central question is legal, not factual, and that interlocutory review would avoid duplicative proceedings. The panel then took the matter under advisement and said it would issue a written decision in due course. No certification or immediate ruling was made on the record.
The case is listed on the docket as Case No. 62170-3, Kimberly Piesel v CJ of Washington. Counsel identified the parties in argument using the spelling "Peezel" for the petitioner; the court record caption at the start of the hearing used the spelling "Piesel." Commissioner Carl Bridal presided. The court did not set any dates on the record for a decision.
Next steps: the Court of Appeals will issue a written ruling on whether it will grant discretionary review; if it declines, the case will proceed in the trial court and, if either party appeals after final judgment, the court may reach the same legal question on appeal.