David Hockett began working in the Seattle Police Department’s (SPD) West Precinct in the early 2000s. He sat in an office next to the precinct’s enclosed parking garage, where officers often leave patrol vehicles idling. Carbon monoxide (CO) from the vehicles entered the office through a small hole in the wall. While working in the West Precinct, Hockett experienced CO poisoning symptoms, including “constant fatigue, chronic headaches, sinus issues, and difficulty concentrating or remembering simple things during or after being in the garage for extended periods of time completing required tasks.”
Around 2015, SPD installed “Idleright” in its vehicles, which turns on the engine when the battery is low to keep the computer powered. Assistant Chief Steven Wilske instructed officers to use Idleright instead of idling, except when parked indoors. After officers continued idling patrol vehicles in the West Precinct’s enclosed garage, they were reminded to turn the engine and Idleright off to avoid accumulating CO.
In May 2016, the Seattle Fire Department (SFD) detected high levels of CO in the garage and warned the precinct that the ventilation system could not handle the volume of exhaust generated by the patrol vehicles. Following an anonymous complaint to the Department of Labor and Industries, SFD retested the garage in August 2017.
Around this time, Assistant Chief Wilske also emailed officers about a separate CO exposure issue caused by faulty construction of SPD’s patrol vehicles that allowed the gas to leak into the passenger compartment. The email included a list of CO poisoning symptoms and encouraged personnel to report potentially related health issues. Hockett told Safety Officer Steve Redmond that his officers were experiencing symptoms and asked what they should do to be checked for exposure. Redmond replied that SPD was “taking steps to mitigate this issue.” Hockett also emailed a supervisor about his own medical issues that had long perplexed his doctors, writing, “I’d like to figure out if the 40+ idling patrol cars and lack of ventilation have been the culprit the whole time.”
In September 2017, the Department of Labor and Industries determined SPD had not violated workplace safety laws but recommended that SPD upgrade ventilation and prohibit officers from finishing reports in vehicles in the garage. Hockett, frustrated by SPD’s opacity and inaction, placed CO monitors in the garage and contacted an Idleright representative who confirmed that the equipment was not intended for use in multiple vehicles idling all day indoors.
Hockett’s email was forwarded to Wilske, who commanded his supervisors to ensure the sergeant knew that he could not contact vendors and should raise safety concerns internally. He concluded, “Make it clear that this is an order. I will aggressively follow up if it is violated and this continues.” For over a year, Hockett was quiet about the CO issues. John Brooks, his direct supervisor, told him that he was considered a “problem child” and should “lay low” if he wished to advance.
In November 2017, SPD discovered the garage ventilation system was not efficiently extracting air due to poor installation and the fan speed setting and fixed both issues.
In May 2019, Hockett emailed Brooks about his health issues, and his belief that he was being targeted for his investigation into CO issues. Hockett claimed that officers called him names like “CO guy,” “troublemaker,” and “dead man walking,” and an unknown employee physically posted in the office a whistleblower protection flyer with “HOCKETT” written on it. Brooks called Hockett into a disciplinary meeting after the email, during which he told Hockett to stop monitoring the CO levels in the garage and suggested he transfer precincts. Hockett declined because transferring would mean a pay cut, longer commute, and fewer opportunities to advance. He “understood Brooks’ insistence that he leave the West Precinct as punishment for reporting his health concerns.”
That summer, Hockett found a picture in his cubicle of Morgan Freeman’s Shawshank Redemption character and a quote from the movie, which he interpreted as a message from the other officers that he was “trapped like a prisoner” without advancement opportunities in SPD. In September 2019, Hockett told his supervisor that he began taking anti-depressants and continued to experience CO exposure-related health issues. The precinct captain placed him on six months of administrative leave.
In June 2020, Hockett sued SPD in King County Superior Court, alleging negligence for the CO exposure and failure to accommodate his disability in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination. In February 2021, Hockett filed a whistleblower complaint with the city ethics commission director that the director dismissed as insufficient and untimely. He amended his complaint in June 2021, adding allegations that SPD retaliated against him by denying employment opportunities and creating a hostile work environment. He resubmitted the whistleblower complaint in June 2021, attaching the amended lawsuit complaint, and the city ethics commission director found his resubmitted complaint was sufficient and timely, but declined to investigate while the issue was before the court.
The case went to trial and the jury found SPD liable on several counts and awarded Hockett $1,325,000 in damages. The largest financial penalty stemmed from Hockett’s retaliation claim. The City and SPD appealed, arguing that the trial court should have dismissed the jury’s retaliation verdict because Hockett had not exhausted the administrative process for whistleblower complaints as required by the Seattle Municipal Code.
The code requires employees to file a sufficient and timely complaint with the city ethics commission director before pursuing a retaliation claim in court. Sufficient complaints include assertions that, if true, show the employee is cooperating, has experienced adverse change(s) in their employment, and that their protected actions reasonably appear to have influenced those change(s). Timely complaints are made within 180 days of when the employee learned the adverse change was possibly retaliatory. If the director determines the complaint is sufficient and timely, but declines to investigate, the employee may pursue the issue in court.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the city ethics commission director’s assessment that Hockett’s complaint was both sufficient and timely. The complaint asserted that after Hockett reported his health issues, his supervisors “behaved or encouraged coworkers to behave in a hostile manner,” including calling him names, writing his name on the whistleblower pamphlet, and posting the image at his desk. The complaint was inherently timely because Hockett alleged the adverse actions were “ongoing” and therefore continuous in nature. The Court of Appeals rejected the City and SPD’s appeal and affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
Hockett v. Seattle Police Department, 548 P.3d 271 (Wash. Ct. App., 2024).