 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ellison v. Process Systems Incorporated Construction Co.6/20/2002
Concurring: Stephen M. Brown, John A. Schultheis
PUBLISHED OPINION, originally released unpublished, ordered published July 30, 2002.
Donna Ellison appeals an order of the superior court vacating a default judgment entered against Process Systems Incorporated Construction Company (PSI). More than two years after the entry of the judgment, PSI asked that the default judgment be vacated because it was obtained by misrepresentation or misconduct, or because it was void. The superior court granted PSI's motion to vacate the judgment, ruling that because the judgment had been entered without notice to PSI after it appeared, the judgment was void. We agree and affirm.
FACTS
After Donna Ellison was fired by PSI, she consulted attorney Stewart R. Smith. She reported that PSI's stated reasons for her discharge-- loitering or wasting time on the job, encouraging other employees to engage in similar conduct, and intimidating employees who refused--were pretextual. The real reason for her dismissal, according to Ms. Ellison, was her opposition to the sexual harassment of her female co-workers. Specifically, Ms. Ellison stated that she had witnessed the sexual harassment of her female co-workers by PSI employee Ellis Bufkin. To her attorney, Ms. Ellison stated her belief that she was discharged by PSI because she had informed her fellow co-workers that Mr. Bufkin's conduct constituted sexual harassment that they need not tolerate.
Approximately two weeks after he met with Ms. Ellison, Mr. Smith wrote a letter to Herb Gerson, an attorney representing PSI. Mr. Smith knew that Mr. Gerson handled employment litigation for PSI because the two attorneys were working on another employment case involving PSI. In his letter to Mr. Gerson, Mr. Smith stated Ms. Ellison's claim against PSI and asked that she be reinstated with back pay.
In a letter dated June 12, 1998, a PSI attorney responded to Mr. Smith's letter. In that letter, PSI stated that Ms. Ellison had been dismissed for cause and denied that the dismissal was in any way related to sexual harassment. Even so, the PSI attorney stated that PSI took seriously allegations regarding sexual harassment of its employees. The letter advised Mr. Smith that the matter would be investigated and asked for additional information. On June 26, the same attorney wrote Mr. Smith that remedial action had been taken.
Apparently dissatisfied with PSI's responses to her attorney's letters, Ms. Ellison sued PSI for wrongful discharge. The complaint was filed on September 17, 1998. The summons and complaint were personally served upon PSI's registered agent in the State of Washington on September 28. When PSI failed to appear and answer the complaint, Ms. Ellison filed a motion and affidavit for default. An order of default was entered on November 20, 1998.
Nearly six months later, on May 19, 1999, Ms. Ellison asked the court to enter a default judgment against PSI. The court granted Ms. Ellison's request for a total judgment of $177,874.56.
More than two years later, on July 27, 2001, PSI asked that the default judgment be vacated. The motion was based upon CR 60(b)(4), fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; CR 60(b)(5), void judgment; CR 60(b)(9), unavoidable casualty or misfortune; and CR 60(b)(11), other reasons permitting vacation. In support of its motion, PSI submitted the affidavits of Herb Gerson, Tiny Jenkins, and Richard McLeod III. Mr. Jenkins is PSI's Human Resources Administrator. Mr. McLeod was the project supervisor for the job on which Ms. Ellison worked. They stated that Ms. Ellison was terminated for 'loitering' on the job and mistreat
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|