Opinion ID: 2611454
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Civil Service Exclusive Remedy

Text: DOC argues initially that any claim by the officers is barred because the State's Civil Service statutes constitute the exclusive remedy for any and all claims an employee covered by civil service may have against the State or other employees covered by civil service. Other states have held civil service remedies to be exclusive. In Devine v. City of Des Moines, 366 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Iowa 1985) (quoting Iowa Code Ann. § 400.18 (West 19__)), the Iowa Supreme Court considered language similar to RCW 41.06.010 from the Iowa civil service law: `No person holding civil service rights as provided in this chapter shall be removed, demoted, or suspended arbitrarily, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.' The court held this language provided the sole means by which the propriety of a civil service employee's dismissal may be determined. Other states interpreting their civil service law as the exclusive remedy for civil service employees in the absence of a specific exclusivity provision include California ( Valenzuela v. State, 194 Cal.App.3d 916, 240 Cal.Rptr. 45, 48-49 (1987)); Kansas ( Gray v. Jenkins, 183 Kan. 251, 326 P.2d 319, 326 (1958)); Mississippi ( Scott v. Lowe, 223 Miss. 312, 78 So.2d 452 (1955)); Tennessee ( Wallace v. Neal, 191 Tenn. 240, 232 S.W.2d 49 (1950)); Vermont ( Smith v. Highway Bd., 117 Vt. 343, 91 A.2d 805 (1952)); and Wisconsin ( Castelaz v. City of Milwaukee, 94 Wis.2d 513, 289 N.W.2d 259, 267 (1980)). See also Micone v. Town of Steilacoom Civil Serv. Comm'n, 44 Wash.App. 636, 643 n. 2, 722 P.2d 1369, review denied, 107 Wash.2d 1010 (1986); accord Albright v. State, 65 Wash.App. 763, 768, 829 P.2d 1114 (1992); White v. State, 131 Wash.2d 1, 929 P.2d 396 (1997). While RCW 41.06 and WAC Title 356 provide comprehensive rules governing the selection, continued employment, discipline, and discharge of state employees and the remedies afforded state employees, we do not need to reach the exclusive remedy issue here because, in this case, Reninger and Cohen have failed to state claims for constructive wrongful discharge or tortious interference.