Source: http://www.matthew-ennis.com/blog/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 13:12:30+00:00

Document:
Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Berman vacated Tom Brady’s four-game suspension in what has been infamously titled “Deflategate“. The 40-page opinion was striking not in its commentary over whether Tom Brady did or did not conspire to or deflate footballs in an NFL game, but rather, like any citizen, Tom Brady was entitled to a fair arbitration.
Judge Berman more or less accepted the arbitrator’s “…facts as the arbitrator found them.” citing to Westrbook Corp. v. Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. 304 P.3d 200, 213 (2d Cir. 2002), but ruled Brady was given “inadequate notice of his potential discipline and alleged misconduct”, denied the opportunity to examine lead investigators and NFL Executive Vice President and General Counsel Jeff Pash, and “denied equal access to investigative files, including witness interview notes.
Arbitration clauses, such as the one Brady was subject to under the NFL Players Collective Bargaining Agreement limited Brady in access to evidence and the ability to cross-examine witnesses. These rights are paramount to the civil justice system but are often waived through arbitration clauses appearing in employment contracts, consumer transactions, and nursing home care. Yesterday’s ruling will have implications beyond just a few deflated footballs, but refocus attention to the necessity of a fair shot at justice.
 Judge Berman’s ruling cited to via the New York Times, available here.
How Tough is Tough Mudder’s Death Waiver?
The person or property of members of the public seeking such services must be placed under the control of the furnisher of the services, subject to the risk of carelessness on the part of the furnisher, its employees or agents.
So what does this all mean to Tough Mudder or similar obstacle course participants here in Washington? While the so called “Death Waiver” is untested among Washington appellate courts, the case of legal Johnson v. Spokane to Sandpoint, LLC may provide insight. In Johnson, the plaintiff registered for a 185-mile running relay race between Spokane, Washington and Sandpoint, Idaho.
When registering for the event, Ms. Johnson signed and agreed to waive and release Spokane to Sandpoint … from any and all claims or liability of any kind arising out of my participation in this event, even though that liability may arise out negligence or carelessness on the part of persons on this waiver. While running the race a witness reported that Ms. Johnson crossed the northbound lanes of highway 2 before colliding with an oncoming driver incurring severe injuries. In applying these facts to the six factor test, the court ultimately ruled in part that the “preinjury release precluded Ms. Johnson from claiming an ordinary negligence duty by Spokane to Sandpoint, LLC and that facts did support a higher gross negligence standard.
While Johnson may be cited as supporting waivers such as required by Tough Mudder and other extreme events, it will be for the courts in the future to decide whether the 6-factor test should be modified in the age of extreme races.
 Hewitt v. Miller, 11 Wash.App. 72, 521 P.2d 244 (1974).
 Wagenblast v. Odessa Sch. Dist. 105–157–166J, 110 Wash.2d 845, 851–55, 758 P.2d 968 (1988)(citing Tunkl v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 60 Cal.2d 92, 32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441, 446 (1963)).
Are Non-competes Hurting Seattle’s Tech Industry?
Washington joins Massachusetts and Rhode Island in considering new legislation that would severely limit or void many non-compete agreements. Known in Washington as House Bill 1926, the law would principally require that “every contract by which a person is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” If enacted, Washington would join other leading states like California that severely limit non-compete agreements in employee contracts.
Supporters of the bill point to the enormous success of the tech industry in Silicon Valley where similar bans exist. However, critics say non-competes are necessary to protect the employer’s investment in training, education, and exposure to confidential company information.
For the casual reader, non-competes agreements in Washington are often thought of in three parts: (1) agreements to not work for a competitor/customer; (2) agreements to not solicit customers; and (3) agreements to not solicit employees. The three are colloquially thought of as one agreement. However, Washington courts view each of these provisions differently with the burden on the employer to show that the agreement is reasonable.
The debate surrounding non-compete agreements have increased due to recent reports of non-compete clauses showing up in low-wage manual labor contracts. The New York Times reported in 2014 of non-compete agreements showing up in Jimmy John’s employee contracts. The company’s actions have prompted congressional attention to ban non-competes for certain worker categories or workers earning below a monetary threshold. This is a notable contrast to non-competes widespread use for high-wage earners such as executives, engineers, scientists and high-commission sales employees.
 Sheppard v. Blackstock Lumber Co. 85 Wn.2d 929, 933, 540 P.2d 1373 (1975).
Yesterday, Uber appealed a California Labor Commission ruling that held an Uber driver was not an independent contractor, but an employee of Uber. $4,152.20 in backwages is insignificant when compared to the broad implications of reclassifying Uber drivers as employees.
The ruling is in striking contrast to Uber’s long-held proclamation as a “logistics” or a “lead generating” service that simply connects independent contractors to consumers desiring those services.
A similar ruling here in Washington State could have a major impact on Uber operations here. The Washington State Supreme Court tackled the independent contractor v. employee issue recently in Anfinson v. FEDEX Ground Package System, Inc., 281 P.3d 289 (2012) in adopting the FLSA (“Fair Labor Standards Act”) “economic reality” test for deciding whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor. The test largely focuses on the degree to which an employer asserts control over the worker. Should a similar ruling to California’s be adopted here, Uber would need to dramatically revise its business model.
 The Court referring it to also as the “economic dependence” test.
 See also: Bonnette, 704 F.2d at 1469-70 (Home health care workers jointly employed by social service agencies); Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Associates, Inc., 603 F.2d 748, 755-56 (9th Cir. 1979) (licensor of patented strawberries may have jointly employed strawberry growers, where it could control important growing and marketing decisions).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.