Skip to main content

DeFelice v. Employment Security Department

Wash. Ct. App.May 26, 2015No. No. 32382-0-IIICited 11 times
Defendant WinDr. Armand DeFelice's Dental Practice$1,896.37 at issue
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Beown, Koksmo, Siddoway
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

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The court affirmed the Employment Security Department's decision that two associate dentists were employees rather than partners, requiring the dental practice to pay $1,896.37 in back unemployment insurance taxes, penalties, and interest.

What This Ruling Means

**DeFelice v. Employment Security Department: Court Dismisses Case Over Procedural Issues** **What Happened:** A worker named DeFelice filed a lawsuit against Washington State's Employment Security Department, which handles unemployment benefits and workplace issues. The specific details of DeFelice's complaint are not provided in the available information, but it involved an employment-related dispute with the state agency. **What the Court Decided:** The Washington Court of Appeals dismissed DeFelice's case in May 2015. The court found that there were problems with how the case was filed or whether the court had the proper authority to hear it. These are called "procedural or jurisdictional deficiencies." Essentially, the court determined that the case couldn't move forward because of these technical issues, without addressing the actual merits of DeFelice's claims. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case highlights an important reality for workers: winning a case isn't just about having valid complaints—you must also follow proper legal procedures and file in the right court. When suing government agencies like employment departments, there are often strict rules about how and where to file claims. Workers should ensure they understand filing requirements and deadlines, or consider getting legal help to avoid having their cases dismissed on technical grounds before being heard.

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.