Skip to main content

Richard L. Ferguson v. Employment Security Department

Wash. Ct. App.June 8, 2020No. 79673-9
Defendant WinWashington State Employment Security Department
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Employment Security Department, holding that quasi-judicial immunity barred Ferguson's tort claims arising from the Department's denial of his unemployment benefits.

What This Ruling Means

**Ferguson v. Employment Security Department: Unemployment Benefits Dispute** This case involved Richard L. Ferguson, who had a dispute with Washington State's Employment Security Department (ESD) regarding unemployment benefits. The ESD is the state agency that processes unemployment insurance claims and determines whether workers qualify for benefits when they lose their jobs. Ferguson disagreed with a decision made by the ESD about his unemployment claim and took his case to the Washington Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, the specific details about what Ferguson was disputing and the court's final decision are not available in the provided information. **What This Means for Workers:** Even without knowing the specific outcome, this case illustrates an important right that unemployed workers have in Washington State. When the Employment Security Department denies unemployment benefits or makes other decisions workers disagree with, those workers can challenge these decisions through the court system. This appeals process provides a safety net, ensuring that workers have recourse when they believe the state agency has made an error in handling their unemployment claim. Workers should know they don't have to accept ESD decisions as final if they believe those decisions are wrong.

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

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.