A King County Superior Court jury recently found that the city of Federal Way did not wrongfully terminate a long-time police lieutenant twice in 2006 and 2007.
The former Federal Way police lieutenant, Robert Piel, and his wife filed a civil lawsuit against the city in January 2008.
The suit involves nearly seven years of legal maneuvering, including a Supreme Court appeal that ruled in the Piels’ favor on June 27, 2013.
But it’s not over.
The Piels told the court they plan to appeal the case within 30 days of the verdict’s filing on Nov. 5.
Both Piel and city spokesman Chris Carrel declined to comment on the case, given the appeal that will soon be filed, which keeps the case in active litigation.
Piel’s suit outlines numerous complaints against the city, ranging from nepotism and retaliation to wrongful termination.
Years of contention
In January 2008, Piel and his wife filed their first civil lawsuit seeking damages for wrongful termination based on several factors. He alleged he was terminated in 2006 and 2007 for retaliation and that the city violated public policy. Also, he said officials violated the family medical leave act, committed an invasion of his privacy rights and violated his freedom of speech in addition to claiming a loss of consortium, as his wife has suffered a strain on her family relationship and “lost the companionship of her husband.”
A former Federal Way police patrol officer of two years and lieutenant of eight years, Piel alleges it all began when one of his officers was the target of an investigation involving a dog “bite” in the early 2000s.
Believing a commander lied about the situation, he went to the police chief at the time and expressed his concerns. However, he said she seemed “annoyed” and not interested in his written statement.
The commander resigned a few months later for unknown reasons, his complaint states.
Piel writes in his suit that before she quit, he noticed she interacted with another commander — Greg Wilson, the younger brother of the current chief of staff, Brian Wilson. Brian Wilson was the deputy chief for the police department at that time until he became police chief in 2006.
Their interaction caused Piel to conclude “there was a romantic relationship between [the commander] and [Greg] Wilson.”
In a response to Piel’s complaint, the city stated they were “without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations” that the two were romantically involved.
During the same time, the Federal Way lieutenants voted to unionize and Piel’s peers asked him to take the lead.
Although he said he was at first hesitant because “he feared resentment and reprisal” from upper administration, he continued because the chief allegedly assured officers that management supported their desire to organize.
Still, Piel felt uneasy because he said he heard a former Federal Way lieutenant was “forced out of the agency” shortly after he organized the Patrol Officer’s Guild and a former guild president had also left after “having difficulty with upper management over guild matters.”
However, court documents indicate the city denies the lieutenant left shortly after, nor was the president forced out over guild matters.
Later, the chief changed her mind, Piel states.
According to the lawsuit, she allegedly said at a management meeting if the lieutenants went through with plans to unionize, they wouldn’t remain “as close to her administration” as they once were.
The city said they were “without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief” as to Piel’s allegations regarding the former chief’s opinion of unions.
Piel notes all of his annual work evaluations had been above average until January 2005. However, the city denied he had a good working relationship with the city in years past.
Throughout 2003-04, when he helped start the guild, Piel said he felt he was being scrutinized by the Professional Standards Division — a division then-commander Greg Wilson was in charge of, and Piel alleged nepotism. Yet, city officials denied all nepotism allegations.
That summer, Piel was allegedly second guessed for “nearly every” use of force review and citizen complaint his team of officers generated. Piel’s supervisor at the time, Commander Kyle Sumpter — now the current deputy chief — would discuss with Piel each case that was returned for more information, the lawsuit states, and “agreed it was unfair and upsetting the officers.”
But most of the complaints were coming from “career criminals” and were minor, Piel said.
“Because Commander Sumpter was satisfied with his performance, Lt. Piel continued to do the best he could and accepted the belief that he was being targeted for his involvement in the guild, and that it would subside in time,” the lawsuit continues.
However, in a motion for judgement document filed by the city in King County Superior Court, they state the, “Plaintiffs have offered no evidence that Chief Brian Wilson expressed any negative attitude toward the formation of the Lieutenants’ Association,” the one who would eventually terminate Piel.
Furthermore, the city denied that Piel was being singled out for the use of force reviews.
Piel was removed from leading that squad at the end of that summer and was told he was a “losing coach” by the chief and Brian Wilson.
The city responded they “didn’t have enough information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations” whether Piel was told he was a “losing coach” or that he “lacked leadership.”
Piel said he eventually reviewed department records relating to the amount of use of force reviews, calls for service, pursuits and citizen complaints per squad and found them to be “consistent throughout the previous years, as well as the following year.”
The city didn’t deny or admit that information either.
As Piel worked in the detective division for the last three months of 2004, a three-year position opened up. But the position was given to a junior lieutenant with “less than half” of his experience.
While the city admits he had an above-average review from the commander, they could not comment on any of his other allegations.
According to court documents, the lieutenants guild was then certified in January 2005.
When performance evaluations came around during that time, Piel was confused to learn his commander at that time (instead of Sumpter, who had been with him the majority of the year) would be doing a partial review, while Brian Wilson would conduct the rest, a statement the city denies.
“The portion of the evaluation that was completed by [that commander] was favorable as to Lt. Piel’s performance,” the lawsuit states. “The portion that was supplied by Deputy Chief Brian Wilson reflected a very poor performance evaluation and also cited inaccurate information relating to his supervision of the ‘F’ Squad.”
But the city denies Piel’s “characterization” of the evaluation and states it’s not necessarily “accurate or complete.”
Piel filed a complaint with the city, citing policy violations. His search of the Federal Way Policy Manual allegedly revealed Brian Wilson violated city policy when he wrote the evaluation, which the city couldn’t form a “belief” on. Piel filed another complaint with the police department administration.
Piel’s complaint was considered and was “sustained and/or founded,” the city admits.
Brian Wilson eventually removed the “unfavorable” scores and reprinted the evaluation after Piel’s complaints were sustained.
Piel was then the subject of a March 2005 standards investigation, which he tried to appeal twice but was unsuccessful. During the time of the investigation, he was on leave from work for a knee injury but was summoned to the police department “for the purpose of concluding the standards investigation.”
Brian Wilson allegedly told Piel he wasn’t “plugged in” to the administration and that he was upset he hadn’t attended management meetings while on medical leave, despite that Piel’s commander told him not to become involved in any work-related activity until a doctor said otherwise. The city denied that allegation.
Piel allegedly never received the findings of the standards investigation at that meeting, causing him to believe “there was no legitimate reason for calling” him from his home.
Soon after Piel returned to work in August 2005, he filed a Family and Medical Leave Act complaint. It was during this time he allegedly found out Brian Wilson named him as “one of five lieutenants who were ‘problems to the administration,’” in which the chief issued a formal statement to the agency, apologizing for the deputy chief’s words. The city denies this allegation.
First termination
In March 2006, Piel was called by one of his officers who responded to an automobile accident. During the incident, an officer stopped a firefighter at the scene and noticed he seemed to be intoxicated. He allegedly told Piel he was calling for “options.”
“Lt. Piel advised the officer that if he wished to arrest the firefighter for ‘DUI,’ Lt. Piel ‘would support him’ in that decision,” the documents state. “Lt. Piel further advised the officer, consistent with past practice that if he did not choose to make an arrest, Lt. Piel would call the fire department headquarters and ask if a battalion chief would like to handle the matter internally.”
The city denies that the decision was consistent with past practice.
The officer allegedly preferred that option and Piel made the call. The firefighter was released and, soon after, another standards investigation was knocking on Piel’s door.
Piel essentially violated a provision of the “Manual of Standards,” and Brian Wilson alleged that wasn’t the only provision.
Piel told his commander during the investigation that “such decisions were in the scope of discretion afforded to officers” and that he had seen “ethical violations and criminal violations committed by Commander Greg Wilson on at least two prior occasions.”
“Lt. Piel also stated that because Commander Greg Wilson’s brother is [sic] the deputy chief, Lt. Piel had been fearful of retaliation to report the violations,” the documents state. “However, because the current environment of harassment, retaliation and nepotism were now affecting his career, Lt. Piel told [his commander] that he had observed Commander Wilson consuming alcoholic beverages within a Federal Way city park with other officers present on at least two occasions.”
He alleged a member of the Federal Way command staff was also arrested by the California Highway Patrol for drinking and driving but was promoted after the arrest.
The city denied the “characterization” of the events and the “audiotape recordings of the interviews at issue speak for themselves.”
How could that police officer get a promotion when he now faced demotion or termination for something that “was viewed amongst staff as commonplace?” he asked in the lawsuit.
A month later, the police department opened up another standards investigation on Piel. It alleged Piel committed serious misconduct by abuse of authority, as well as a violation of a supervisor’s role in discipline.
On July 7, 2006, the police chief terminated Piel “directly” after he filed a claim for damages with the city. Piel heard Greg Wilson allegedly make comments that Piel had “better be” fearful of the administration during the investigation, which the city said didn’t happen.
Piel complained of the alleged remark and of a hostile work environment and retaliatory actions from Greg Wilson, Brian Wilson and the police chief.
Piel immediately filed a grievance with his union after he was terminated in July 2006.
But before the grievance hearing with an arbitrator, Piel became aware the chief sent out an email to the approximate 175 police employees detailing the reasons for his termination and providing a question and answer session for the staff. Piel also alleges the chief authorized the internal investigation to the public before it was finished, as there was still time for Piel to appeal, which he did.
But the city denies Piel’s characterization of that “document” and said the terms of the document speak for itself in relation to the allegation over the chief’s email. However, city officials do admit the chief and deputy chief attended a “shift briefing” to answer questions about Piel’s termination.
The arbitrator heard arguments from Piel, his union and the police and city administration who terminated him. Finally in July 2007, the arbitrator deemed one of the grounds for termination was a cause for a demotion — the firefighter incident — while the other, the abuse of authority claim, was not. He reinstated Piel’s employment and he returned to work on Aug. 13, 2007. Piel was also awarded all back pay and benefits, which the city initially refused to pay, according to state Supreme Court documents.
Upon the arbitrator’s decision, Piel claims Brian Wilson, now police chief, said Piel “would never work [for the city of Federal Way] again,” an allegation the city denies.
Second termination
Piel was placed on administrative leave pending another investigation on Aug. 15, 2007, based on allegations he threatened to shoot the command staff.
Despite taking a polygraph examination, which “confirmed his truthfulness” that he never said those things, he was terminated again.
Piel said on his first two days back he felt uneasy, according to court documents. On the second day, as he put his stuff away in the locker room, he saw two swing-shift officers. Attempting to “break the ice,” he struck up a conversation with them and answered questions about what he did during his time away. He “tried to be funny and relieve his intense feelings of discomfort and exhaustion” throughout the conversation, the documents continue.
But the next day, Sumpter took his gun and holster and Piel found himself in a conference room talking to then-Deputy Chief Andy Hwang, now police chief.
He was being placed on administrative leave because of the allegation that he had threatened the administration.
Piel was not allowed any witness statements, despite a code he interpreted to allow him to, and later received a letter accusing him of six policy violations. Five accusations were later dropped, but the single charge remained.
Piel took questions from a September 2007 investigation interview to a polygraph expert, who tested him and found him truthful, according to court documents. He sent these documents to the investigator but someone was reassigned to the case because he was not allowed to conduct a polygraph per the guild’s policies.
The city said Piel’s questions he took to the polygraph expert were not the same as the one’s on the investigator’s original list, according to court documents.
“In addition, given that Piel is a trained polygrapher, [the investigator] suspected that Piel might be able to manipulate the exam,” the documents state, noting that his willingness to take the test was not “evidence of his honesty.”
On Oct. 2, 2007 the new investigator found that he was lying and based her decision on the witness statements who alleged the remarks — two who were the swing-shift officers he had encountered his second day at work, one was a man named Jason Wilson, the quarter master.
According to court documents, the witnesses’ statements all mention that Piel alluded to shooting or murdering administration staff but all had presumed he was joking, being sarcastic or wasn’t serious. In a second interview after the investigator had apparently already made a conclusion, Piel said he was “insistently re-questioned” and admitted that “anything is possible,” but never agreed he made the remark in the interview.
The investigator changed her mind and stated, “In such circumstances, Piel could credibly be unable to recall making one of many negative comments. This could be true even regarding the murder comment, which he said in passing without particular emphasis.”
She stated Piel’s mental state could have influenced his ability to remember what he said or “he could have failed in good faith to recall most of it.”
Nevertheless, his termination was sustained.
Supreme Court appeal, jury verdict
During the course of the legal proceedings, the city sought for the case to be dismissed early.
King County Superior Court Judge Bruce Heller dismissed most of the Piels’ claims, except for their complaint alleging wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Regarding wrongful termination, the city argued that Piel lied during the investigation when he denied that he threatened anyone in the police department because he subsequently admitted that “anything is possible,” according to court documents.
Heller ruled to dismiss the Piels’ case and granted the city’s motion for summary judgement in October 2009. The judge relied on a Washington Supreme Court ruling in the 2005 Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities Services, Inc. case to dismiss the wrongful discharge claim.
However, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Washington state Supreme Court shortly after.
“The only issue [the court addressed] was whether he could file a wrongful termination suit,” said Amy Jo Pearsall, city attorney, who could only comment on the context of the case. “The court’s issue was whether the jeopardy element was met or not — that’s the only thing they were deciding.”
The case required the Supreme Court to consider complex legal analysis and decisions on previous Supreme Court cases, including Korslund and a 2000 decision in Smith v. Bates Technical College.
In Smith, the court recognized that an employee in Piel’s position, who is protected by a collective bargaining agreement, may bring a common law claim for wrongful termination based on the public policy provisions of RCW 41.56, regardless of the administrative remedies available through the Public Employees Relations Commission.
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Piel’s case held that nothing in the court’s later opinion in the Korslund case altered the aforesaid holding.
Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the King County Superior Court’s dismissal of Piel’s wrongful discharge claim on June 27, 2013 and remanded the case back to superior court for further proceedings. The court determined that Piel could pursue his claim that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy for engaging in protected union activity.
The case picked back up again in March and went to trial on Oct. 13. During the 10-day trial, Piel argued that he was wrongfully terminated and said the city should pay him over $1 million in lost wages and benefits, in addition to damages for emotional distress and six years worth of attorney fees.
However, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the city on all claims on Oct. 22. The jury rejected Piel’s claim that his termination was motivated by his protected union activity.
“What it came down to was, there was no evidence of union bias and there was no evidence that [Brian] Wilson was motivated by the fact that Piel had helped form the lieutenant’s union,” Pearsall said. “Because [Piel] filed a grievance in 2006, there was no anti-union animus when [Wilson] made his termination decision.”
Editor Carrie Rodriguez contributed to this report.
