Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, Decision 14152 (PECB, 2025)

STATE OF WASHINGTON

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

angela moore, Complainant, vs. Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, Respondent.

CASE 143106-U-25 DECISION 14152 - PECB order of dismissal

Angela Moore, the complainant.

Darlene Mendoza, Director of HR, for the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department.

On April 30, 2025, Angela Moore (complainant) filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (employer). The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110.[1] A deficiency notice issued on May 20, 2025, notified Moore that a cause of action could not be found at that time. More was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint or face dismissal of the case. On May 30, 2025, Moore filed an amended complaint.

ISSUE

The original and amended complaints allege the following:

Employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1)] within six months of the date the complaint was filed, by discriminating against Angela Moore for Moore’s exercise of protected activity.

Employer interference in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) within six months of the date the complaint was filed, through threats of force or reprisal or promise of benefit made by surveilling Angela Moore’s social media pages in response to Moore’s exercise of activity not protected by chapter 41.56 RCW.

The original and amended complaints are dismissed because neither the complaint nor the amended complaint included facts demonstrating the employer discriminated against Moore for her exercise of activity protected by chapter 41.56 RCW. Moore’s amended complaint also fails to state a cause of action for employer interference because it fails to assert that Moore was engaged in activity protected by chapter 41.56 RCW when the employer allegedly surveilled her social media pages.

Background

Moore works for the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (employer) as a Health Promotion Technician under project status. According to the original complaint, from 2022 through 2025, Moore performed duties outside of her job classification including leading the Idle 253 community planning, launching the Mobile Resource Vehicle program, and implementing the Street Medicine outreach program. Moore asserted that despite this work she was denied classification upgrades and passed over for permanent roles that she had been performing.

Moore’s original complaint also asserted that the employer ignored her request for a job description and filed an unidentified grievance on April 7, 2025. Moore claimed that after she went on Family Medical Leave, she was subjected to retaliatory communication, removal from internal planning, and misleading claims about her employment ending. The complaint did not identify how the employer retaliated against her or which employer officials took the alleged acts against Moore. Moore also claimed that the employer erased her contributions while continuing to use her work in external reports and grant documentation. The complaint did not identify which employer officials took these alleged acts against Moore or when these acts occurred.

Moore’s amended complaint alleged the employer retaliated against Moore during her Family Medical Leave Act leave. Specifically, Moore claimed that on May 27, 2025, she posted a whistleblower article. Moore also claimed that within 48 minutes of posting that article, Human Resources Generalist Angie Temple viewed Moore’s LinkedIn profile. Moore claimed that this act appeared to be in direct retaliation and had a chilling effect on Moore’s protected activity.

ANALYSIS

Applicable Legal Standards

PERC’s Role and the Form of the Complaint

The role of Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) is to resolve labor relations disputes between unions, employers, and on occasion, individual employees. When a complaint is filed with the agency, PERC does not investigate the filing party’s claim. Rather, agency staff will review the complaint to determine if it states a cause of action and if it does the case will be forwarded to a PERC hearing examiner who serves as an administrative law judge. When an individual employee files a complaint with PERC, the individual takes on the responsibility for presenting their case before the agency (although the individual may hire an attorney to represent them).

Complainants must allege facts addressing the basic elements of a cause of action. Kitsap County, Decision 12022-A (PECB, 2014). A complainant must describe the facts with sufficient clarity for agency staff to determine whether a cause of action exists “and then sufficient to put the respondent on notice of the charges that it will be expected to” defend against. Thurston Fire District 3, Decision 3830 (PECB, 1991). Thus, for example, those facts must include the time, place, date, and participants in all occurrences. WAC 391-45-050(2)(a). The agency staff reviewing the complaint are not empowered “to fill in gaps in a complaint.” City of Tacoma, Decision 4053-B (PECB, 1992); South Whidbey School District, Decision 10880-A (EDUC, 2011) (citing Jefferson Transit Authority, Decision 5928 (PECB, 1997)). In other words, a complainant must connect the dots by alleging sufficient facts that would support finding a violation and identifying the violation alleged. Seattle Colleges, Decision 13762-A (CCOL, 2024).

Employer Discrimination

It is an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate against employees for engaging in union activity. RCW 41.80.110(1). An employer unlawfully discriminates against an employee when it takes action in reprisal for the employee’s exercise of rights protected by chapter 41.56 RCW. University of Washington, Decision 11091-A (PSRA, 2012); Educational Service District 114, Decision 4361-A (PECB, 1994). The complainant maintains the burden of proof in discrimination cases. To prove discrimination, the complainant must first set forth a prima facie case establishing the following:

1.                  The employee participated in an activity protected by the collective bargaining statute or communicated to the employer an intent to do so;

2.                  The employer deprived the employee of some ascertainable right, benefit, or status; and

3.                  A causal connection exists between the employee’s exercise of a protected activity and the employer’s action.

Ordinarily, an employee may use circumstantial evidence to establish the prima facie case because respondents do not typically announce a discriminatory motive for their actions. Clark County, Decision 9127-A (PECB, 2007). Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of facts or circumstances which according to common experience give rise to a reasonable inference of the truth of the fact sought to be proved. See Seattle Public Health Hospital (AFGE Local 1170), Decision 1911-C (PECB, 1984).

In response to a complainant’s prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent need only articulate its nondiscriminatory reasons for acting in such a manner. The respondent does not bear the burden of proof to establish those reasons. Port of Tacoma, Decision 4626-A (PECB, 1995). Instead, the burden remains on the complainant to prove either that the employer’s reasons were pretextual, or that union animus was a substantial motivating factor behind the employer’s actions. Id.

Interference with Protected Activities

It is an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their statutory rights. RCW 41.56.140(1). To prove interference, the complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence the employer’s conduct interfered with protected employee rights. Grays Harbor College, Decision 9946-A (PSRA, 2009); Pasco Housing Authority, Decision 5927-A (PECB, 1997), remedy aff’d, Pasco Housing Authority v. Public Employment Relations Commission, 98 Wn. App. 809 (2000). An employer interferes with employee rights when an employee could reasonably perceive the employer’s actions as a threat of reprisal or force, or a promise of benefit, associated with the union activity of that employee or of other employees. Kennewick School District, Decision 5632-A (PECB, 1996).

An employer may interfere with employee rights by making statements, through written communication, or by actions. Snohomish County, Decision 9834-B (PECB, 2008); Pasco Housing Authority, Decision 5927-A.

The complainant is not required to demonstrate that the employer intended or was motivated to interfere with employees protected collective bargaining rights. City of Tacoma, Decision 6793-A (PECB, 2000). Nor is it necessary to show that the employee involved was actually coerced by the employer or that the employer had union animus for an interference charge to prevail. City of Tacoma, Decision 6793-A.

Application of Standards

Moore’s complaint failed to state a cause of action for employer discrimination. Although Moore alleged that she engaged in protected activity – the filing of the April 7, 2025, grievance asserts that she was denied an ascertainable right, Moore did not allege facts demonstrating there was a causal connection between the employer’s action and her exercise of protected rights. Absent timely facts demonstrating that there was a causal connection between the employer’s actions and the exercise of protected activity, Moore’s complaint must be dismissed.

Moore’s amended complaint also fails to state a cause of action for employer interference with protected employee rights. While the amended complaint asserts that Temple viewed Moore’s LinkedIn profile in response to Moore’s May 27, 2025, whistleblower article, Moore has not alleged facts demonstrating that the subject matter of the article pertained to the collective bargaining matters that are protected by chapter 41.56 RCW. Absent such facts, the allegations of the amended complaint must be dismissed.

Finally, it is worth noting that PERC’s jurisdiction is limited to labor relations disputes. The agency does not have authority to resolve all disputes that might arise in public employment, such as allegations that an employer discriminated against an employee because of a recognized disability. This agency is not empowered to hear or remedy allegations that an employer discriminated against an employee for exercise of their FMLA rights. Just because the complaint does not state a cause of action for an unfair labor practice, it does not necessarily mean the allegations involve lawful activity. It means that the issues are not matters within the purview of PERC. Tacoma School District (Tacoma Education Association), Decision 5086-A (EDUC, 1995).

Order

The complaint and amended complaint charging unfair labor practices in the above-captioned matter are DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this  7th  day of July, 2025.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

DARIO DE LA ROSA, Unfair Labor Practice Administrator

This order will be the final order of the
agency unless a notice of appeal is filed
with the Commission under WAC 391-45-350.