Case Explained: JONES V. CITY OF SEATTLE, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-23 Docket: 2:22-cv-01668-RAJ The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s exclusion of expert witness testimony and its grant of summary judgment to the City of Seattle and Seattle City Light. Regarding the expert testimony, the court held that the exclusion was not an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff failed to disclose her expert witnesses by the deadline set in the case management order as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), and she provided no justification for this failure under Rule 37(c)(1). On the merits, the court affirmed summary judgment on the plaintiff’s public policy tort claim regarding wrongful discharge. While acknowledging that the district court erred in rejecting the claim solely because the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) provides adequate remedies, the appellate court affirmed on the alternative ground that the plaintiff failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact. Under Washington law, a public policy tort requires showing that a clear mandate of public policy was a significant factor in the termination; the court found no triable dispute that religious or racial discrimination was a significant factor in the decision to terminate her, noting she did not challenge the district court’s prior determinations on her WLAD claims. Additionally, the court affirmed summary judgment on her claim under Article I Section 11 of the Washington Constitution because she failed to argue that the denial of her vaccine exemption constituted a burden on her sincere religious belief for which the city lacked a compelling state interest. The court also held that the plaintiff waived any remaining arguments not raised in her opening brief or properly preserved. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.