Skip to main content

KUSTURA v. Department of Labor and Industries

Wash. Ct. App.January 22, 2008No. 57445-1-I, 57446-9-I, 57447-7-ICited 22 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Agid
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's orders, finding that the workers' failure to timely appeal wage rate determinations prevented appellate review, the wage calculations were correct, and the workers were not entitled to additional interpreter services at employer expense.

What This Ruling Means

**What This Case Was About** This case involved workers at Dependable Building Maintenance who disagreed with how their wages were calculated under state labor laws. The workers also wanted their employer to pay for additional interpreter services beyond what was already provided. They brought their complaints to the Department of Labor and Industries, but when they didn't like the initial decisions about their wage rates, they waited too long to formally appeal those rulings. **What the Court Decided** The Court of Appeals sided with the Department of Labor and Industries on all issues. The court found that because the workers missed the deadline to appeal the wage rate decisions, they lost their right to challenge those calculations later. The court also ruled that the wage calculations were done correctly according to state law, and that the employer was not required to pay for additional interpreter services beyond what they were already providing. **What This Means for Workers** This case highlights the importance of meeting legal deadlines when challenging workplace decisions. Workers must file appeals within the required time limits, or they may lose their right to contest wage calculations or other employment decisions. The ruling also shows that employers may not be required to provide unlimited interpreter services, though basic accommodations are still generally required under disability and language access laws.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.