Veterans' Preference Statute is Unconstitutional in Washington
State.
From: "Charles Heckman" chvietvet@hotmail.com
(360)
352-8564.
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:27 PM
Subject: Court of Appeals
hearing on veterans' preference
The Washington State Court of Appeals,
Division II, at Tacoma has ordered a hearing for the appeal Heckman v.
Departments of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife, Docket No. 28656-4-II, on Monday,
May 12, 2003, 9:00 a.m., in the courtroom at 950 Broadway, Suite 300, Tacoma,
Washington.
This appeal was filed under the Constitution of the State of
Washington, which guarantees its citizens trial by jury, a right denied by the
Superior Court for Thurston County.
Main issues are the
constitutionality of Washington's Veterans' Preference Statute and the
discretion of State agencies to give absolute preference to their own employees
and friends of employees over more qualified veterans. Also at issue is
the right of an agency to blacklist a veteran for filing a discrimination
complaint as well as the enforcement of the Washington and Federal
whistleblower, privacy, and anti-blacklisting laws, which prohibit retaliation
against persons for filing complaints and disclosing illegal practices and
prohibit the exchange information to prevent persons from obtaining
employment. Selections to fill at least 12 vacancies with the defendant
agencies are at issue.
The Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, in
Seattle, recently decided that the Washington Veterans' Preference Statute is
unconstitutional if applied when a veteran is substantially less qualified than
the person the agency wishes to hire. The unanswered question is whether
agencies are permitted to simply declare that a non-veteran is more qualified
than a veteran, even though the veteran has more education, experience, tangible
achievement, and specific knowledge required for the job. This appeal
seeks to reverse a Superior Court decision denying a veteran a chance to present
his case before a jury to show that his qualifications are considerably better
than each of the 12 applicants preferred by the agencies. None of the
successful applicants were entitled to preference of any kind, and all of them
either worked for the agency already or were acquainted with agency employees
through contract work. The veteran holds master's and doctoral degrees in
a field directly related to the job, while not one of the 12 persons selected
holds a doctoral degree and only one has earned a master's degree.
Attorney General Christine Gregoire has already spent more than $185,000
to have the courts strike down Washington's Veterans' Preference Statute in four
lawsuits filed by veterans. This law was previously declared
Constitutional in 1955, but the courts have recently reversed this decision
through the efforts of Ms. Gregoire. She has virtually unlimited amounts
of our Federal and State tax money to pay state lawyers to defend her position,
while the veteran is forced to argue without the assistance of an
attorney. If you can make it to Tacoma on May 2, 2003, I would appreciate
your attendance at this hearing. Points will be argued for and against
veterans' preference, and limits of its application will be set.
Federal
decisions do not affect veterans' preference with agencies of the State of
Washington, so it is not relevant that the United States Supreme Court has
decided in favor of veterans or that many other states have done the same.
Washington has its own Constitution and laws, and it is at issue whether
veterans will continue to enjoy the preference they once thought they had
earned.
The case file is a public record. If you are qualified to
serve on a jury, your opinion is important. If you would decide that the
veteran is legally entitled to a favorable decision, then the decision of the
Superior Court for Thurston County is illegal. That court is permitted to
grant summary judgement if and only if no reasonable juror could possibly decide
in favor of the veteran and if the state agencies have a right to a decision as
a matter of law. That means that if, after hearing the facts and law, you
think that a preponderance of evidence would show that the veteran was more
qualified for any of the jobs, then the veteran must win this appeal, and his
the lawsuit must go to trial before a jury.
Members of veterans' service
organizations are especially encouraged to attend or at least follow the outcome
of this case. It is expected that a decision will be announced at the
hearing. For further questions, send a response to this e-mail or contact
me at (360) 352-8564.
Charles W. Heckman
E-mail: "Charles Heckman" chvietvet@hotmail.com
(360) 352-8564
Veterans' Voting Bloc
Washington State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------