Janet Lane worked as a per diem Registered Nurse II (RN II) at Harborview Medical Center.?? In 2007 she applied for and accepted a job as a RN II classified nurse. ?She alleged that she was misclassified from 1998? 2007 because her actual work circumstances during that timeframe demonstrated she was a part-time classified nurse.? ?Plaintiff claimed a violation of RCW 49.44 et seq.? ?Summary judgment was granted for the employer.? ?In granting?? summary?? judgment,?? the?? trial?? court struck? portions? of? plaintiff?s? declaration. Plaintiff appealed.
On the evidentiary question, the Court ruled that Plaintiff was without personal knowledge to testify concerning what classified nurses were making or how they were scheduled despite her functional knowledge of the scheduling process. ?The Court also affirmed the trial court?s ruling that a letter from her attorney concerning a request for reclassification was not relevant and properly excluded by the trial court.
The Court affirmed the dismissal of the misclassification claim concluding: ?Lane?s objective work circumstances?specifically, her control? over? her? schedule?as? a? per? diem nurse were not the same as the objective work circumstances of a classified nurse. Lane?s employment ?classification? was? one? of? her choosing, and her choosing alone. We hold that Harborview did not misclassify Lane, and that the trial court did not err in dismissing her claim under RCW 49.44.170(1)(a).??? ?Lane v. Harborview Medical Center, No. 61774-5-I (02/1/2010) (Applewick, Dwyer, Becker)