As a veteran Seattle Employment Attorney, I provide creative, cost-effective representation to both employers and employees in disputes involving sexual harassment, wage/hour, employment discrimination, whistleblowers, non-competition/trade secrets, Sarbanes/Oxley, ERISA, labor, workers’ compensation, OSHA/WISHA investigations and citations, and civil rights claims.

My practice emphasizes assisting businesses and individuals in all aspects of governmental regulatory and enforcement matters, proactive planning to avoid employment disputes, litigation of employment claims on behalf of employers and employees, and appellate advocacy in these and other types of cases. My focus includes:

• Sexual Harassment
• Employment Discrimination
  • Race
  • Age
  • Disability
  • Gender
  • National Origin
  • Sexual Orientation
  • Veteran’s Status
• Non-Competition/Trade Secrets
• Wage/Hour
• OSHA/WISHA
• Labor Laws
• Employment Law
• Employee Rights
• Wrongful Termination
• Overtime Compensation
• Defamation 
• Severance Agreements 
• Whistleblower Claims
• Administrative Law
• Injunctions
• Workers' Compensation
• Employee Policy Manuals and Employee Handbooks

As an experienced Seattle Employment Attorney, I have successfully litigated and tried  a wide range of employment claims on behalf of employers, employees and government entities. This includes many trials, hearings and arbitrations brought to successful conclusion before the National Labor Relations Board, the Washington State Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, the American Arbitration Association, and federal and state courts of all levels in the State of Washington.

• Hansen v. Flintoft’s Issaquah Funeral Home (2007):  Obtained favorable settlement for sexual harassment plaintiff on claim in King County Superior Court
• Case Stack, Inc. v. Blumberg, et al (2006):  Obtained preliminary injunction in favor of client Case Stack, Inc. for violation of non-competition covenant by former employees
• Evergreen Crane Services, Inc. v. Max Ford, et al (2006):  Obtained preliminary injunction, and then judgment for plaintiff company exceeding $900,000, including award of attorneys’ fees, for breach of business sale agreement and violation of non-competition covenant
• Rodgers v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (2006):  Summary judgment for employer client from federal district court in Seattle dismissing all claims including FMLA, race discrimination, negligent supervision, outrage claims
• Franklin v. AT&T (2001):  Summary judgment for employer in ERISA class action in federal district court in Alaska

If you are an employer or employee in Washington State and need the assistance of an experienced Seattle Employment Attorney, call Ralph Pond today at 866-306-6478, or complete the contact form provided on this site to schedule your free consultation.

Practice Areas and Legal Definitions

Sexual Harassment:
Sexual harassment is any unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior.  It involves a broad range of conduct, including such verbal harassment as derogatory comments, explicit sexual comments and descriptions of sexual exploits, leering or requesting sexual favors.  The term also describes physical harassment, ranging from inappropriate touching to outright sexual assault. In order to be classified as illegal the conduct in question must be both unwelcome and offensive to the victim.

Sexual harassment is a form of sexual discrimination, prohibited in employment settings under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Title IX of the 1972 Education Act makes sexual harassment in schools or other educational settings unlawful.  The Federal Fair Housing Act also provides protection against sexual harassment, and most states have enacted legislation making it unlawful.

Wrongful Termination:
Termination of employment cannot be classified as "Wrongful Termination" unless it is in violation of some fundamental public policy, as set forth in a state or federal statute, regulation or constitutional provision.  Examples of Wrongful Termination include situations where:

• An employee is discharged for failure to comply with an order to perform an act that violates some law, ordinance or regulation, or
• An employee is discharged in retaliation for complaints about conduct by the employer that he or she believes to be unlawful, e.g., failure to pay overtime, or failure to comply with safety regulations.

Employment Law:
Employment law is a well-established body of statutes and judicial decisions covering all rights and obligations within the employer-employee relationship, including current employees, job applicants and former employees.  It covers a wide range of legal issues, ranging from employment discrimination and wrongful termination to matters involving wages and workplace safety.  Many employment law issues are governed by applicable federal and state employment law, but a number of issues are determined according to basic contract law.

Employee Rights:
All employees have basic rights arising from both state and federal laws.  Some of these rights include:  the right not to be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, skin color, gender, pregnancy, religious beliefs, disability, age, and in some places, marital status or sexual orientation; the right to a workplace free of harassment; the right to be paid at least the minimum wage as provided by federal or state law; the right to overtime wages as provided by federal or state law; the right to a safe workplace and the right to take leave to care for a personal or family member's serious illness, or following the birth or adoption of a child.

Employment Discrimination:
Discrimination generally occurs when an employee is intentionally treated differently because of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, gender, age, and in some states, sexual orientation.  Employment discrimination claims may be prosecuted under various state and federal statutes.  Even if the employee’s evidence is sufficient to show discrimination, an employer may be able to justify a particular job action by demonstrating that such treatment arose out of business necessity, or that a legitimate job qualification required consideration of factors that had an unintentional discriminatory effect.  When the employer makes such a legitimate justification, the employee must show that discrimination, not the employer’s justification, was the true reason for the action.

Age Discrimination:
It is unlawful for an employer, employment agency or labor union to discriminate in employment on the basis of age.  This includes refusing to hire an individual or firing an employee.  It also includes an individual’s compensation, the terms, conditions, and privileges of his or her employment, and all employee benefits.

Disability Discrimination:
Both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protect individuals with disabilities from employment discrimination.  An individual with a disability is defined as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of having such a physical or mental impairment, or is regarded as having such impairment.  The term is broadly defined to include any physiological, mental or psychologically-based impairment, but it does not include mere physical characteristics or cultural, environmental, or economic impairment—the impairment must cause a substantial limitation to a major life activity.  Temporary conditions, such as a broken arm or the flu, would not be considered substantial limitations amounting to a disability entitled to statutory protection.

Overtime Compensation:
Under both State and Federal law employers are required to pay additional compensation to eligible employees who work more than forty hours during any seven-day period.  For every hour over forty hours in any given workweek the employer must pay the eligible employee at least one and one-half times the employee's ordinary hourly rate.

Labor Laws:
Historically, labor laws have focused on such matters as eliminating unsafe workplace conditions, securing a living wage for employees, and eliminating, or at least, tempering the strife that often occurs between employee and employers. 

Labor and Employment attorneys can help employees with the following:

• Assisting with federal and state wage and hour law issues and claims
• Representing employees before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and state human rights agencies
• Representing employees in litigation against employers for violations of anti-discrimination laws.

Defamation (Libel & Slander):
Defamation is the communication of a false and unprivileged statement that exposes another to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or which causes him or her to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him or her in his or her trade or occupation.  The defamatory statement must be communicated to someone other than the person to whom it refers and it must refer to a living person.

Defamation communicated verbally it is called "Slander," but if it is communicated in writing, it is called "Libel".  As a general rule it is easier to recover damages in a lawsuit for libel than in a slander lawsuit.  Most defamation litigation in the employment arena concerns the employer’s “qualified privilege” to defame.  Under this concept, employers and former employers are often protected from liability for defaming employees or former employees.  By its very definition, however, the privilege is “qualified,” and not “absolute”.  It is generally limited to situations in which the employer or former employer is making a good faith communication of information to someone who has a legitimate interest in receiving it.  A good example of this is a former employer’s good faith response to a new or prospective employer’s inquiry about the job performance of a former employee.  Generally speaking, even if the information given is false and damaging and would otherwise give rise to a defamation lawsuit, it will be protected under the “qualified” privilege.

If the communication exceeds the scope of the privilege, the privilege is not available.  For example, if the communication to your new or prospective employer is not in response to an inquiry, but a voluntary and unsolicited communication, liability for defamation will attach if the information is untrue.  Even if the communication is made in response to prospective employer’s inquiry, false and damaging information will not be protected by the privilege if it is made with knowledge or reckless disregard of its falsity, or with the intent to cause injury to the former employee.  It is important to remember that however damaging it may be, a truthful statement cannot form the basis of a defamation lawsuit.  This legal truism is often expressed in the phrase:  "The Truth is a complete defense to a defamation action".

Non-competition Agreements:
Non-competition agreements are provisions contained within an employment contract which restrict the activities of an employee after leaving the service of the company.  Courts treat non-competition agreements with suspicion—with an eye toward preventing unnecessary and unreasonable interference with a person’s livelihood after severance of the employer/employee relationship.

The Courts will often decline to enforce “unreasonable” non-competition agreements.  A non-competition clause in the agreement under which a used car lot employs an auto mechanic will likely be summarily rejected by the court as unreasonable.  The agreement must be reasonable in duration.  A non-competition agreement barring the sales manager of a used car lot from engaging in the used car business for the rest of his or her life, or for 50 years, would probably be denied enforcement, while one with a 2-year term might well be enforced.  Non-competition agreements must be reasonable in the area covered.  If the agreement precludes the sales manager from engaging in the used car business anywhere in North America, it will almost certainly be denied enforcement as unreasonable.  If the area is limited to Seattle, for example, it would probably withstand court scrutiny.

Whistleblower Claims:
Whistleblower Claims involve employer retaliation, sometimes to the extent of Wrongful Termination, against an employee who reports the improper or unlawful conduct of another employee or of management itself to government authorities.  It is illegal for an employer to retaliate against a “whistleblower.” Whistleblower claims are not available to employees of private sector employers.

Workers’ Compensation:
Workers’ Compensation is a state-run system under which employees receive various types and levels of compensation for on-the-job injuries. New York Law prohibits discrimination against an employee for pursuing, in good faith, a workers compensation claim.

If you are an employer or employee in Washington State and need the assistance of an experienced Seattle Employment Attorney, call Ralph Pond today at 866-306-6478, or complete the contact form provided on this site to schedule your free consultation.

If you are an employer or employee in Washington State and need the assistance of an experienced Seattle Employment Attorney, call Ralph Pond today at 866-306-6478, or complete the contact form provided on this site to schedule your free consultation.

ADDRESS OF THE FIRM:
Benedict Garratt Pond & Pierce, PLLC
1000 2nd Avenue, 30th Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: 866-306-6478
Fax: 206-447-4345

MEMBERS OF THE FIRM:

Ralph Pond
Ralph Pond joined Benedict Garratt Pond & Pierce, PLLC in 2006 after nearly 25 years with Lane Powell PC, where he served as chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment Practice Group.

Ralph’s practice includes labor/employment and commercial litigation, including all aspects of employer counseling and representing both management and aggrieved employees in trial and appeal of non-competition, trade secrets, employment discrimination, labor, wrongful discharge, ERISA, FMLA, wage/hour, Sarbanes/Oxley, worker’s compensation and OSHA/WISHA matters. He is the featured expert in the nationally recognized LearnKey interactive training program entitled “The ADA and Disability Law.”

Ralph has successfully pursued and defended hundreds of claims involving public entities and private companies before federal and state courts and agencies. He has also obtained favorable decisions in a number of significant cases before state and federal appellate courts in Washington. These include: Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 153 Wn.2d 331 (2004) (arbitration clauses enforceable in the employment context); Christensen v. Grant County Hospital, Dist. No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 295 (2004) (administrative collateral estoppel applies to PERC hearings); Sharpe v. AT&T, 66 F.3d 1045, (9th Cir. 1995) (employer not required to show undue hardship if any reasonable accommodation is offered disabled worker); Wolf v. Scott Wetzel Services, 113 Wn.2d 665, 782 P.2d 203 (1989) (Washington State Supreme Court disallowed suits for bad faith administration of industrial insurance claims); and Shoemaker v. City of Bremerton, 109 Wn.2d 504, 745 P.2d 858 (1987) (public employee not entitled to bring civil rights lawsuit if he was already afforded an administrative hearing of his claim).

EDUCATION:

• Brigham Young University (J.D., cum laude, 1981; B.A., Economics, 1978)
  • Order of the Barristers
  • Phi Kappa Phi

BAR ADMISSIONS:

• Washington Courts
• United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
• United States District Court, Western District of Washington
• United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES/HONORS:

• Asia-Pacific Lawyers Association
• BYU Management Society
• J. Reuben Clark Law Society
• Amicus Committee of the Washington Self-Insurers Association
• Employment Law Committee of the Washington Defense Trial Lawyers Association
• American Bar Association, Labor and Employment Section
• King County Bar Association, Labor Section