Campeau v. Yakima HMA

3 Wn.3d 339

[No. 102047-3. En Banc.]

Argued January 11, 2024.

Decided July 11, 2024.

Daniel Campeau, Individually and on Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated, Petitioner, v. Yakima HMA, LLC, Respondent.

[3 Wn.3d 340]

González, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Johnson, Gordon McCloud, Yu, Montoya-Lewis, and Whitener, JJ., and Rumbaugh, J. Pro Tem., concurred. Madsen, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stephens, J., concurred.

Nature of Action: After the Washington Supreme Court dismissed an action brought by a labor organization on behalf of its member nurses on the basis that the organization lacked associational standing, an individual union member brought an action seeking class certification and asserting the same claims against the employer for unpaid working hours, overtime hours, and missed meal periods. The employer moved to dismiss on the basis that the statute of limitations had run on the union member’s claims.

Superior Court: The Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 20-2-01953-39, Jeffery B. Swan, J., on March 17, 2021, entered an order denying the employer’s motion to dismiss the action, concluding that the statute of limitations had been equitably tolled by the organization’s suit.

Court of Appeals: At 26 Wn. App. 2d 481 (2023), the court reversed the trial court’s order, holding that the statute of limitations was not equitably tolled.

Supreme Court: Holding that equitable tolling may be appropriate, even in the absence of bad faith or deception,

[3 Wn.3d 341]

where associational standing fails, an association’s member files a follow-on class action, and all other elements of equitable tolling have been met, the court reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Adam J. Berger and Lindsay L. Halm (of Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender), for petitioner.

Paula L. Lehmann (of Davis, Wright, Tremaine LLP); and Lance A. Pelletier (of Ramsey Companies Inc.), for respondent.

Blythe H. Chandler and Benjamin B. Gould on behalf of Washington Employment Lawyers Association, Public Justice, and Towards Justice, amici curiae.

Jennifer L. Robbins on behalf of Washington State Labor Council, amicus curiae.

[1] ¶1 González, C.J. — General jurisdiction courts have the power, in limited circumstances, to equitably toll a statute of limitations established by the legislature. When the statute of limitations is tolled, a case that would otherwise be untimely may proceed. In re Pers. Restraint of Fowler, 197 Wn.2d 46, 53, 479 P.3d 1164 (2021). Given our due regard for the legislature, equitable tolling must be applied sparingly but is available when justice demands it. Millay v. Cam, 135 Wn.2d 193, 206, 955 P.2d 791 (1998).

¶2 In a suit that was timely filed by a nurses’ union, a trial court found that Yakima HMA LLC wrongfully withheld wages from its nurses. Years later, and after the stat-

[3 Wn.3d 342]

ute of limitations had passed, this court dismissed the union’s attempt to recoup those wages, finding the union lacked associational standing. Before the mandate on our opinion issued, some of those nurses filed this class action suit in an attempt to recover wages due. This case asks us to determine whether equitable tolling applies to allow this otherwise untimely class action to proceed. We conclude that equitable tolling may be available, even in the absence of bad faith or misconduct by the defendant, when a case based on associational standing fails, an association member promptly files a follow-on class action, and the remaining elements of equitable tolling have been met. We agree with the trial court that equitable tolling is appropriate here. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Facts

¶3 A trial court found that over five years, Yakima HMA LLC failed to pay nearly $1.5 million in nurses’ wages. In 2015, the Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA)¹ brought a claim against Yakima HMA for unpaid wages on behalf of 28 home health and hospice nurses. Wash. State Nurses Ass’n v. Yakima HMA, LLC, 196 Wn.2d 409, 412, 469 P.3d 300 (2020) (WSNA). Several nurses, including the lead plaintiff here, Daniel Campeau, actively participated in the WSNA case. The trial court concluded that WSNA had associational standing to bring the case and that Yakima HMA knowingly and willfully deprived the nurses of their wages. Id. at 414.

¶4 Years later, and after the statute of limitations would have passed, we reversed the trial court on the threshold issue of standing. This court concluded that WSNA did not have associational standing to recover unpaid wages on be

[3 Wn.3d 343]

half of its nurses because the "damages established through representative testimony were not certain, easily ascertainable, or within the knowledge of the defendant." Id. at 411. In deciding that case we noted that "[o]ther routes to collective action against the egregious conduct of [Yakima HMA] were not foreclosed for the nurses." Id. at 425. We clarified that "[e]gregious employment practices, like the practices that the nurses testified about …, should be confronted." Id. We also observed that "it [was] undisputed that the nurses could pursue a class action claim against Yakima [HMA]." Id.

¶5 Before the WSNA case mandated, Campeau filed this class action alleging materially identical wage and hour violation claims. Campeau is a union member, a nurse, and a former employee of Yakima HMA. Campeau brought this action "to vindicate the rights of the nurses who prevailed at trial in the WSNA [c]ase, but who have still not been paid the wages they are due." Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 2.

¶6 Yakima HMA moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing that the statute of limitations barred Campeau’s claims. Campeau acknowledged that nothing prevented the nurses from filing their own claims and did not dispute that his claim exceeded the three-year time bar. Campeau argued that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. The trial court agreed, reasoning, in part, that Campeau (1) "diligently pursued his cla[i]ms through the WSNA action" and (2) "reasonably relied on the union’s action to protect his statutory rights." Id. at 111. Yakima HMA successfully sought discretionary review at the Court of Appeals.

¶7 While review was pending, this court issued its opinion in Fowler v. Guerin, 200 Wn.2d 110, 515 P.3d 502 (2022). In Fowler, we set out the general standards for equitable tolling in civil cases under Washington law. Id. at 112, 125. Fowler requires, in part, a showing that "the defendant’s bad faith, false assurances, or deception interfered with the plaintiff’s timely filing." Id. at 125. Campeau conceded that he could not satisfy Fowler and asked the Court of Appeals

[3 Wn.3d 344]

to apply American Pipe² tolling. Answer to Yakima HMA’s Opening Br. at 5-6 (Wash. Ct. App. No. 38152-8-III (2022)). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, concluding that American Pipe tolling is not available in Washington. Campeau v. Yakima HMA, LLC, 26 Wn. App. 2d 481, 484, 528 P.3d 855 (2023). The Court of Appeals also held that even if American Pipe tolling was available, the doctrine would not apply to Campeau’s case. Id. at 484, 490.

¶8 We granted review.

Analysis

[2] ¶9 We must decide whether the statute of limitations may be equitably tolled, even in the absence of a defendant’s bad faith, where associational standing has failed and a member promptly brings a follow-on class action on the same grounds. Our review is de novo. See Niemann v. Vaughn Cmty. Church, 154 Wn.2d 365, 374-75, 113 P.3d 463 (2005) (availability of equitable relief is a question of law).

1. Availability of American Pipe Tolling in Washington State

¶10 Campeau argues the statute of limitations should be tolled under American Pipe. Yakima HMA responds that even if American Pipe tolling is available in Washington, it does not apply because this case did not originate as a class action and because Campeau was never a class member. We agree with Yakima HMA that the question of whether American Pipe tolling is available in Washington does not arise under these facts.

¶11 In American Pipe, the United States Supreme Court addressed the relationship between statutes of limitations and class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 414 U.S. at 540. In that case, the State of Utah filed a timely

[3 Wn.3d 345]

class action alleging violations of antitrust law by steel and concrete companies. Id. at 540-41. The district court denied class certification because the class was too small. Id. at 543. Subsequently, members of the original class filed motions to intervene. Id. at 544. The district court denied the motions because the statute of limitations had run. Id. The Supreme Court reversed.

¶12 The Supreme Court held that "the commencement of the original class suit tolls the running of the statute for all purported members of the class who make timely motions to intervene after the court has found the suit inappropriate for class action status." Id. at 553. The Court reasoned that a "contrary rule allowing participation only by those potential members … who had earlier filed motions to intervene … would deprive Rule 23 class actions of the efficiency and economy of litigation which is a principal purpose of the procedure." Id. In the absence of tolling, "[p]otential class members would be induced to file protective motions to intervene or to join in the event that a class was later found unsuitable." Id. This would result in "needless duplication of motions." Id. at 554.

¶13 American Pipe is not applicable here. This case does not involve a failed class action and a follow-on motion to intervene. This case involves a failed representational action brought on a theory of associational standing and a follow-on class action. American Pipe does not apply to these facts. Accordingly, we decline to determine whether ...