Court Opinion

ID: 9789937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:44:10.586629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:25.280526
License: Public Domain

Dolliver, J.
(concurring) — With some reluctance I concur with the majority opinion. Reluctance because were I trying the case, I would find both an underlying hostility, based on race, to the program of selective certification and a lack of good faith in the decision of the Guild to litigate the validity of the affirmative action program of Seattle. I would, therefore, have held that the decision to litigate could not, in the racial context of this case, be called "non-arbitrary." Majority, at 377-78.
However, I was not the trier of fact and our rules and my respect for the trial judge compel me to agree with the majority that there is sufficient evidence to uphold the determination of the finder of fact, the trial court, that the actions of the Guild were not fundamentally determined by racial considerations. The majority is thus correct in its *379holding and its statement that "we cannot substitute our judgment for [the finder of fact]." Majority, at 378. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Wicklund, 93 Wn.2d 497, 503, 610 P.2d 903 (1980).
Utter, J., concurs with Dolliver, J.