Mader v. Health Care Authority
Supreme Court of the State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
Docket Number: 72273-1
Title of Case: Eva Mader, Teresa Boyden (aka Knudsen)
v.
The Health Care Authority
File Date: 06/05/2003
Oral Argument Date: 11/13/2002
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from Superior Court,
King County;
98-2-30850-8
Honorable Stephen G. Scott, Judge.
JUSTICES
--------
Authored by Gerry L. Alexander
Concurring: Charles W. Johnson
Barbara A. Madsen
Richard B. Sanders
Faith E Ireland
Bobbe J. Bridge
Tom Chambers
Susan J. Owens
Charles Z. Smith
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
David F. Stobaugh
Bendich Stobaugh & Strong
Ste 3800
900 4th Ave
Seattle, WA 98164
Stephen K. Strong
Bendich Stobaugh & Strong
Ste 3800
900 4th Ave
Seattle, WA 98164
Stephen K. Festor
Bendich Stobaugh & Strong
Ste 3800
900 4th Ave
Seattle, WA 98164
Charles K. Wiggins
Wiggins Law Office
241 Madison Ave N
Bainbridge Is, WA 98110
Kenneth W. Masters
Wiggins Law Office
241 Madison Ave N
Bainbridge Is, WA 98110
Counsel for Respondent(s)
Melissa A. Cain
Assistant Attorney General
2425 Bristol Ct SW
PO Box 40109
Olympia, WA 98504-0109
Derek Edwards
Assistant Attorney General
900 4th Ave Ste 2000
Seattle, WA 98164-1012
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Educationassociation,
Washington Federation of Teachers
Michael J. Gawley
300 E Pine St.
Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98122-2029
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
EVA MADER, TERESA BOYDEN (a/k/a )
KNUDSEN), and a class of similarly situated ) No. 72273-1
individuals, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
v. ) En Banc
)
THE HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY, STATE OF )
WASHINGTON, )
)
Respondent, )
)
THE STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND )
TECHNICAL COLLEGES, )
)
Intervenor/Respondent. )
) Filed June 5, 2003
ALEXANDER, C.J.--We are called upon to determine whether Washington State's
health care authority properly determined that part-time community college
instructors Eva Mader and Teresa Knudsen (petitioners) were ineligible for
employer contributions to their health care coverage during the summer
quarter in 1999. We hold that the Health Care Authority (HCA) erred in
focusing on petitioners' job titles and quarterly contracts, instead of
employing an individualized approach based on petitioners' actual work
circumstances, when determining their eligibility for employer
contributions to their health care coverage. Because of the error, we
remand to the HCA for a determination, consistent with this decision, of
petitioners' eligibility. In addition, we conclude that the superior court
abused its discretion in defining the class and we remand to the superior
court for decertification of the class.
I. Facts
At all times material to this appeal, petitioners Eva Mader and Teresa
Knudsen (also known as Boyden), were part-time community college
instructors in this state. Since 1978, Mader has regularly taught two
German language classes at North Seattle Community College (NSCC) in the
fall, winter, and spring quarters. In each of the past 21 years, Mader was
informed that NSCC would not contribute to her health care coverage during
the summer quarter because she did not teach a class or classes during that
quarter. As a result, Mader was faced each year with either paying a
premium for health care coverage during the summer quarter or going without
employer-based health care insurance during that period.
Teresa Knudsen has worked as a part-time instructor of English and
literature for the Community Colleges of Spokane (CCS) since 1984.
Beginning in 1988, she consistently taught more than half-time in the fall,
winter, and spring quarters, with the exception of the fall quarter in
1994. Knudsen also taught a summer quarter course in 1997 and 1998. Each
summer, including those in which she taught a course, Knudsen was informed
that she was not eligible for employer contributions to her health care
coverage. Knudsen also received a letter of reasonable assurance from CCS
in the spring of 1998 which 'guaranteed' her at least 66 percent1 of a full-
time work load for the fall quarter of 1998. Certified Appeal Board Record
(AR) at 244. It was signed and returned prior to the end of the spring
quarter in that year. She received a similar letter in the spring of 1999
and signed the 'offer for fall 1999 employment' on June 18, 1999. AR at
348.
The record discloses that Mader's and Knudsen's circumstances are not
unique. Many part-time community and technical college instructors are
deemed ineligible for employer contributions to their health insurance
during the summer quarter. Although each employee is given the opportunity
to self-pay, some do not maintain coverage due to the cost. In recent
years, Mader paid for her summer health care coverage at a cost to her of
approximately $750 each summer. In 1999, Knudsen paid approximately $830
for her summer health care coverage.
On December 3, 1998, Mader and Knudsen together sought a determination from
the HCA, the agency responsible for the eligibility requirements for health
care coverage of state employees, that they and other 'similarly situated
{part-time} community college employees' were entitled to state-paid health
benefits during the summer quarters. AR at 14. The deputy program manager
of the Public Employees' Benefits Board (PEBB), an arm of the HCA,
responded to their request by a letter in which she indicated that the HCA
could not declare an individual eligible for benefits without direction
from that person's employer. The deputy program manager stated:
the individual community colleges determine their own employee definitions
through a bargaining process. The bargained definitions and faculty
contracts direct the employment practices at each institution, and the
institutions then apply the benefit eligibility category from our WACs they
believe to be most appropriate. The Health Care Authority does not have
any authority to oversee employment contracts or bargaining decisions made
at the individual institutions; therefore, we are unable to declare an
individual employee eligible for benefits without direction from their
employer.
AR at 34.
Mader and Knudsen appealed the deputy program manager's decision to the
administrator of the HCA. They maintained that they were 'entitled to
state-paid health benefits during the summer months' based on the plain
language of the HCA's regulation set forth in WAC 182-12-115(4) or (5). AR
at 3. The presiding officer who considered their appeal permitted the
State Board of Community and Technical Colleges to intervene.
The presiding officer thereafter issued a decision in which she denied the
petitioners' claim of eligibility for employer contributions to their
health care coverage during the summer quarter of 1999.2 The presiding
officer indicated that because Mader and Knudsen signed contracts for each
quarter in which they taught classes, the proper regulation for determining
their eligibility for employer contributions to their health care coverage
was WAC 182-12-115(5). That regulation requires a part-time faculty member
who works on a quarter/semester to quarter/semester basis to work at least
half-time for two consecutive quarters/semesters in order to be eligible
for employer contributions to health care coverage. WAC 182-12-115(5).
Based on a determination that the petitioners had not worked at least half-
time during the summer of 1999, the presiding officer concluded that
petitioners were not eligible for the employer contributions they sought.
Mader and Knudsen, together, sought judicial review of the HCA decision in
King County Superior Court. The superior court granted review3 and
certified the matter as a class action upon the motion of Mader and Knudsen
and with no opposition from the HCA.4 The class was ultimately defined by
the superior court as
{a}ll present or former part-time 'academic employees,' as that term is
defined in RCW 28B.50.489(3), who worked for the Washington State community
or technical colleges and received employer-paid health coverage during the
spring quarter or semester of a year, but were considered to have worked
less that {sic} half of a full-time workload during the subsequent summer
quarter and who therefore did not receive employer-paid health coverage in
the summer. Subject to the applicable statute of limitations, the class
includes all such academic employees, past, present, and future.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 265.
The superior court divided the class into three subgroups, as follows:
1. Part-time community and technical college instructors who sign
quarterly contracts and receive employer-paid health coverage during the
Spring Quarter, but who do not sign a quarterly contract and do not work in
the Summer Quarter and do not receive health benefits in the Summer Quarter
because they are considered to work less than half of a full-time workload.
2. Part-time community and technical college instructors who sign
quarterly contracts and receive employer-paid health coverage during the
Spring Quarter, and who sign a quarterly contract for the Summer Quarter
but are denied health benefits because they are considered to work less
than half of a full-time workload.
3. Part-time community and technical college instructors who worked on
other than a quarter to quarter or semester to semester basis and received
employer-paid health coverage during the Spring Quarter, and who are denied
health benefits in the Summer Quarter because they are considered to work
less than half of a full-time workload.
CP at 269-70.
Following a hearing, the superior court affirmed the HCA's decision as to
the first subgroup on grounds other than those upon which the HCA's
decision was based. It concluded that members of the first subgroup, part-
time instructors who do not sign summer quarter contracts, are not
employees and therefore are not eligible for health benefits. The superior
court further indicated that because the class members in the first
subgroup are not state employees, the HCA should not have based its
decision on WAC 182-12-115(5). It determined, however, that instructors in
the second subgroup are employees of the State during the summer. It,
therefore, reversed the decision of the HCA and required the HCA to
'provide health benefits' to those instructors during the summer quarters
in which they sign contracts. CP at 275. Insofar as the third subgroup
was concerned, the superior court reserved ruling until further proceedings
were conducted.
Mader and Knudsen, as well as the HCA and the State Board of Community and
Technical Colleges, sought discretionary review of the superior court's
decision. The Court of Appeals, Division One, granted discretionary review
and affirmed the superior court in part, holding that 'part-time
instructors who do not sign contracts and do not work during the summer
quarter are not employees of the State during that period' and are
therefore 'not entitled to employer contributions to the premiums for
employee health benefits during that time.' Mader v. Health Care Auth.,
109 Wn. App. 904, 907, 37 P.3d 1244, review granted, 146 Wn.2d 1021, 52
P.3d 520 (2002). The Court of Appeals also reversed the superior court in
part, indicating that it exceeded the scope of its authority by reviewing
the eligibility of the second and third subgroups in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, when the HCA had not
issued a decision regarding those two subgroups.
Mader and Knudsen petitioned this court for discretionary review on the
question of whether the HCA properly determined that Mader and Knudsen were
not eligible for employer contributions to their health care coverage
during the summer quarter. We granted that petition.
II. Class Certification
Petitioners challenge the 'effective decertification' of the second and
third subgroups and request that we interpret Civil Rule (CR) 23(c)(1) in
light of the Court of Appeals determination that the superior court
exceeded its authority by considering the claims of employees other than
those who did not teach during the summer quarter of 1999. The respondents
contend that because the HCA determined only that the petitioners were
ineligible for employer contributions for the summer quarter of 1999, due
to the fact that neither taught more than half-time during that quarter,
the superior court was required to limit its review, pursuant to RCW
34.05.554(1),5 to community college teachers who did not sign contracts for
the summer quarter of 1999.6
Although neither party here claims the class certification was improper
and, in fact, both parties agreed to certification and differed only
slightly in their proposed phrasing of the definition of the class, we feel
compelled to examine the superior court's definition. We have raised this
issue sua sponte in order to assure a fair and orderly review. We may
waive the rules of appellate procedure when necessary to "serve the ends of
justice." RAP 1.2(c); see RAP 7.3, 12.2; Greengo v. Pub. Employees Mut.
Ins. Co., 135 Wn.2d 799, 813, 959 P.2d 657 (1998); see also City of Seattle
v. McCready, 123 Wn.2d 260, 269, 868 P.2d 134 (1994) (court has inherent
discretionary authority to reach an issue not briefed by parties if the
issue is necessary for decision); Kruse v. Hemp, 121 Wn.2d 715, 721, 853
P.2d 1373 (1993); Hall v. Am. Nat'l Plastics, Inc., 73 Wn.2d 203, 205, 437
P.2d 693 (1968) (an appellate court has authority to "decide crucial issues
which the parties themselves fail to present").
When reviewing an administrative decision, the superior court is acting in
its limited appellate capacity. Union Bay Pres. Coalition v. Cosmos Dev. &
Admin. Corp., 127 Wn.2d 614, 617, 902 P.2d 1247 (1995). However, RCW
34.05.510 permits the reviewing court to consider ancillary procedures such
as certification of a class action under CR 23. RCW 34.05.510(2). A
court's decision to certify a class is discretionary and will not be
overturned absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Eriks v. Denver, 118
Wn.2d 451, 466, 824 P.2d 1207 (1992).
As stated above, the superior court defined the class as
{a}ll present or former part-time 'academic employees,' as that term is
defined in RCW 28B.50.489(3), who worked for the Washington State community
or technical colleges and received employer-paid health coverage during the
spring quarter or semester of a year, but were considered to have worked
less that {sic} half of a full-time workload during the subsequent summer
quarter and who therefore did not receive employer-paid health coverage in
the summer. Subject to the applicable statue of limitations, the class
includes all such academic employees, past, present, and future.
CP at 265.
The limited class definition changes the focus of the question before the
reviewing court. The question presented to the superior court was whether
the HCA correctly determined whether part-time instructors are eligible for
employer contributions to health care coverage during the summer under
either WAC 182-12-115(4) or (5). By limiting the class definition to 'part-
time 'academic employees' . . . who worked for the Washington State
community or technical colleges and received employer-paid health coverage
during the spring quarter or semester of a year, but were considered to
have worked less that {sic} half of a full-time workload during the
subsequent summer quarter' a result finding an employee is eligible under
WAC 182-12-115(4) is necessarily excluded. CP at 265. Even if the
superior court had determined that Mader and Knudsen were 'employed' by the
State, and therefore 'academic employees,' the class definition would not
support a conclusion that its members teach on a career
seasonal/instructional year basis because the fall and winter quarters are
not within the definition of the class. The court could not have reached
an analysis under WAC 182-12-115(4) under the restrictions of the class
definition. That, however, is the essence of the petitioners' request for
review of the HCA's decision. We conclude, therefore, that the class
definition is deficient and that it was a manifest abuse of discretion for
the superior court to define the class as it is did. Consequently, we
remand this matter to the superior court to decertify the class. Because
we do so, we need not reach the question of whether the trial court
exceeded its authority by considering two subgroups of the class which the
agency did not consider when making its decision.
III. Eligibility for Employer Contributions to Health Care Coverage
Although we remand to the superior court for decertification of the class,
we must address Mader's and Knudsen's claims that they are eligible for
employer contributions to their health care coverage during the summer
quarter of 1999 under either WAC 182-12-115(4) or (5). In doing so we
review the HCA's determination that petitioners are ineligible for coverage
under the criteria established by the PEBB for employer contributions
during the summer quarter.7
The Washington Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA) governs review of a
decision by the Health Care Authority. RCW 34.05.510. Relief from an
administrative decision will be granted when the law is erroneously
interpreted or applied by the agency. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). In conducting
our review of an administrative decision we sit in the same position as the
superior court, applying the WAPA standards directly to the record before
the agency. Tapper v. Employment Sec. Dep't, 122 Wn.2d 397, 402, 858 P.2d
494 (1993). While an agency's findings of fact are granted deference,
applying the law to the facts is a question of law which we review de novo.
Id. at 403.
The Washington state health care reform act of 1988 established the
Washington state health care authority and indicated that its purpose is to
'develop health care benefit programs, funded to the fullest extent
possible by the employer, that provide comprehensive health care for
eligible state employees.' RCW 41.05.006(2). The HCA must balance the
State's interest in 'provid{ing} the most comprehensive health care
possible' with the interest in minimizing the financial burden health care
imposes on the state. Id. '{A}ll full-time and career seasonal employees
of the state' are covered by the HCA's benefit programs. RCW
41.05.011(6); see also RCW 41.05.006(2). '{A}ll part-time and temporary
employees' are covered under the terms and conditions established by the
HCA pursuant to chapter 41.05 RCW. Id. The PEBB was established within
the HCA to determine the eligibility criteria for state employees to
receive health care coverage through the State. RCW 41.05.055, .065; WAC
182-08-020(2). State employees who satisfy the PEBB's criteria are
eligible to receive employer contributions to their health care insurance.
WAC 182-08-120, -190.
In order to determine eligibility for health care coverage, the PEBB
established seven categories of criteria for state employees in WAC 182-12-
115. Petitioners argue that they should be classified as 'career
seasonal/instructional employees' under WAC 182-12-115(4) and assert that
they are, therefore, eligible for employer contributions to their health
care coverage during the summer quarter. Mader and Knudsen alternatively
claim that if they are ineligible under WAC 182-12-115(4) then they are
eligible for employer contributions during the summer as 'part-time
faculty' under WAC 182-12-115(5). In relevant part, WAC 182-12-115 states:
The following employees of state government, higher education, K-12 school
districts, educational service districts, political subdivisions and
employee organizations representing state civil service workers are
eligible to apply for coverage by PEBB plans. . . .
. . . .
(4) 'Career seasonal/instructional employees{.}' Employees who work half-
time or more on an instructional year (school year) or equivalent nine-
month seasonal basis. . . . These employees are eligible to receive the
employer contribution for insurance during the off-season following each
period of seasonal employment.
(5) 'Part-time faculty.' Faculty who are employed on a quarter/semester to
quarter/semester basis become eligible to apply for coverage beginning with
the second consecutive quarter/semester of half-time or more employment at
one or more state institutions of higher education. . . .
Employers of part-time faculty must:
(a) Consider spring and fall as consecutive quarters/semesters when
determining eligibility; and
(b) Determine 'halftime or more employment' based on each institution's
definition of 'full-time'; and
. . . .
(e) Once enrolled, if a part-time faculty member does not work at least a
total of half-time in one or more state institutions of higher education,
eligibility for the employer contribution ceases.
The HCA based its conclusion that Mader and Knudsen were ineligible for
employer contributions on its interpretation of the above-quoted
regulation. First, it determined that because there are different criteria
for 'career seasonal/instructional employees' and 'part-time faculty'
'logic requires that {Mader and Knudsen} be classified as one or the
other.' AR at 392. Second, the HCA concluded that Mader and Knudsen are
not career seasonal/instructional employees because WAC 182-12-115(4)
should be construed to apply only to K-12 school employees and not to part-
time community college faculty. To apply WAC 182-12-115(4) to part-time
instructors such as Mader and Knudsen, the HCA reasoned, would render
subsection (5) meaningless and out of harmony with the remainder of the
regulation.
We interpret regulations under the rules of statutory construction. City
of Kent v. Beigh, 145 Wn.2d 33, 45, 32 P.3d 258 (2001). We construe the
act as a whole giving effect to all of the language used. 'Rules and
regulations are to be given a rational, sensible interpretation.' Cannon
v. Dep't of Licensing, 147 Wn.2d 41, 57, 50 P.3d 627 (2002) (citing State
v. Thomas, 121 Wn.2d 504, 512, 851 P.2d 673 (1993)).
WAC 182-12-115(4) does not, as the HCA determined, apply only to K-12
school employees to the exclusion of part-time community college faculty.
Reading WAC 182-12-115 in its entirety supports our conclusion. The
initial provision in the regulation states, 'The following employees of
state government, higher education, K-12 school districts, . . . are
eligible to apply for coverage by PEBB plans.' WAC 182-12-115. In our
view, this language indicates that employees of higher education are not
excluded from any particular provision in WAC 182-12-115, provided they
satisfy the criteria set forth in the provision. WAC 182-12-115(4),
therefore, includes those part-time community college instructors who 'work
half-time or more on an instructional year (school year) or equivalent nine-
month seasonal basis.' WAC 182-12-115(4).
Our interpretation of WAC 182-12-115(4) does not render WAC 182-12-115(5),
which specifically addresses part-time faculty, meaningless or out of
harmony with the entire regulation. It is evident that not all part-time
instructors will satisfy WAC 182-12-115(4). WAC 182-12-115(5), therefore,
provides coverage for those members of a faculty who satisfy its criteria.
WAC 182-12-115(5) fills a gap for employees who may have variable work
patterns. For instance, a beginning part-time instructor may not satisfy
the elements of WAC 182-12-115(4) after teaching only two quarters, but he
or she may qualify for benefits under WAC 182-12-115(5). Another part-time
instructor may regularly teach less than half-time, but on occasion teach
additional courses such that he or she works half-time or more in a
quarter. If that instructor does so for two consecutive quarters, he or
she may be eligible under WAC 182-12-115(5); if the instructor reverts to a
schedule of less than half-time, he or she is likely to be ineligible for
coverage. WAC 182-12-115(5), in part, establishes a 'line' at which part-
time faculty may become eligible for employer contributions, that is, after
two consecutive quarters or semesters teaching half-time or more.
Including qualifying part-time faculty in WAC 182-12-115(4) does not,
therefore, render WAC 182-12-115(5) meaningless or out of harmony with the
entire regulation.
If a regulation is unambiguous, intent can be determined from the language
alone, and we will not look beyond the plain meaning of the words of the
regulation. Thurston County v. Cooper Point Ass'n, 148 Wn.2d 1, 12, 57
P.3d 1156 (2002); Kilian v. Atkinson, 147 Wn.2d 16, 20-21, 50 P.3d 638
(2002); Flanigan v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 123 Wn.2d 418, 426, 869 P.2d
14 (1994); Waste Mgmt. of Seattle, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 123
Wn.2d 621, 629, 869 P.2d 1034 (1994); In re Matter of Juveniles A, B, C, D,
E, 121 Wn.2d 80, 87, 847 P.2d 455 (1993). However, the plain meaning of a
regulation may also be ''discerned from all that the Legislature has said
in the statute and related statutes which disclose legislative intent about
the provision in question.'" Thurston County, 148 Wn.2d at 12 (quoting
Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C., 146 Wn.2d 1, 11, 43 P.3d 4
(2002)). We recently adopted the second approach to the plain meaning rule
because it is ''more likely to carry out legislative intent.'' Id.
(quoting Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wn.2d at 12).
Either approach to the plain meaning rule supports the conclusion that the
HCA erred in determining that WAC 182-12-115(4) does not apply to part-time
community college instructors even if they satisfy the criteria set forth
in the regulation. The plain meaning of the language in WAC 182-12-115(4)
is that a state employee is eligible for employer contributions to his or
her health care benefits when he or she 'work{s} half-time or more on an
instructional year . . . or equivalent nine-month seasonal basis.' WAC 182-
12-115(4). Any state employee who satisfies this provision is, therefore,
eligible for employer contributions to their health care benefits during
the 'off-season,' which is that time not within the instructional year or
equivalent nine-month season.
Whether a state employee works 'half-time or more' is based on calculating
the number of hours a 'part-time academic employee' works as a percentage
of a full-time employee's work load. RCW 28B.50.4891. The superior court
and Court of Appeals found that Mader and Knudsen were not 'academic
employees' during the summer of 1999 because they neither signed teaching
contracts nor worked during that time. As a result, both courts concluded
that the provisions of WAC 182-12-115(4) were inapplicable. Under that
analysis a calculation under RCW 28B.50.4891 could not be reached.
However, this approach ignores the fact that in order to determine whether
a state employee is a 'career seasonal/instructional employee,' WAC 182-12-
115(4) requires examination of the employee's work status during the
instructional year or equivalent nine-month season. WAC 182-12-115(4).
The focus in determining an employee's eligibility status should not be on
the 'off-season.' Under WAC 182-12-115(4), the 'off-season' is not related
to an employee's eligibility. It is included in the provision solely in
relation to the fact that eligible 'career seasonal/instructional
employees' will receive employer contributions during the months they are
not working. The lower courts, therefore, improperly relied on the fact
that Mader and Knudsen did not sign contracts for the summer quarter of
1999 in concluding the petitioners were ineligible for employer
contributions.
In reaching our conclusion that petitioners are not necessarily excluded
from eligibility for employer contributions under WAC 182-12-115(4) due to
their status as 'part-time' faculty who sign contracts each quarter, we
have given full consideration to the legislature's recent statement of
intent that public employers are prohibited from misclassifying employees
based on labels alone in order to 'avoid providing or continuing to provide
employment-based benefits to which employees are entitled under state law.'
RCW 49.44.160. Rather than arbitrary labels, '{o}bjective standards, such
as control over the work and the length of the employment relationship,
should determine whether a person is an employee who is entitled to
employee benefits.' RCW 49.44.160 (emphasis added). 'Misclassify' is
defined as 'to incorrectly classify or label a long-term public employee as
'temporary,' 'leased,' 'contract,' 'seasonal,' 'intermittent,' or 'part-
time,' or to use a similar label that does not objectively describe the
employee's actual work circumstances.' RCW 49.44.170(2)(d) (emphasis
added). The legislature's expression of its intent in enacting RCW
49.44.160 and .170 is persuasive. In effect, the legislature indicated
that the HCA should not exclude employees from eligibility for
comprehensive health care coverage simply because they are labeled 'part-
time.'8
The HCA did not examine Mader's or Knudsen's actual work circumstances to
determine whether either satisfied the eligibility requirements of WAC 182-
12-115(4). If it had it would have noted that Mader worked for 21 years on
a half-time or more basis fall through spring quarters. Twenty-one years
is not a 'temporary' position. The HCA did find that Mader's employment
pattern of working half-time or more fall through spring quarters continued
in the 1998-99 academic year.
The record is similar for Knudsen. For more than 10 years she worked more
than half-time, fall through spring, with the exception of fall 1994. The
HCA found that she worked half-time or more for the 1998-99 academic year
as well. In addition, the record shows that prior to the end of the spring
quarters in 1998 and 1999, Knudsen received letters of reasonable assurance
from CCS which offered her a continuing position teaching more than half-
time in the upcoming fall quarter. 'Reasonable assurance is a bona fide
offer from an educational institution to assign an individual future work
at that institution under the same terms and conditions as the individual's
previous employment. It is less than a contract or written agreement, but
more than a mere possibility of future employment.' WAC 192-210-015(1).
Knudsen signed both offers for future employment. It appears that both the
school district and Knudsen anticipated a continuing employment pattern of
part-time instruction each instructional year, fall through spring.
IV. Conclusion
Both the plain meaning of the language in WAC 182-12-115 and the
legislative intent behind the recent enactment of RCW 49.44.160 and .170
support our holding that the HCA must employ an individualized approach to
a determination of eligibility for employer contributions to a state
employee's health care coverage. The HCA must examine the actual work
circumstances of a state employee, rather than the contracts or titles
under which he or she is employed, to determine whether an employee
satisfies the eligibility requirements of WAC 182-12-115. This is not what
the HCA did with Mader's and Knudsen's claims. We therefore remand to the
HCA for a determination, consistent with this opinion, of Mader's and
Knudsen's eligibility for health care coverage. Because we conclude that
the HCA erred in determining that WAC 182-12-115(4) could not apply to
Mader and Knudsen we need not reach the question of eligibility for
employer contributions under WAC 182-12-115(5).
WE CONCUR:
1 The letter states that Knudsen is 'scheduled to teach a 66% load.'
Certified Appeal Board Record at 244. It appears that Knudsen crossed out
66% and indicated she was schedule to teach an '88.34%' work load. Id.
2 In the initial request to the HCA, Mader and Knudsen sought determination
of their eligibility for employer contributions to their health care
insurance during summer quarters generally; they did not request a
determination specific to the summer quarter of 1999. They have maintained
this distinction in their pleadings throughout this case. However, the HCA
specifically ruled as to the summer quarter of 1999 only.
3 The review was combined with an on-going superior court action which
involved multiple claims and two other actions. The actions included (1)
part-time instructors at community and technical colleges against the
Department of Retirement Systems and the State Board for Community and
Technical Colleges; (2) a tort action filed against the Health Care
Authority; and (3) a class action judicial review of the Health Care
Authority's decision to deny employer contributions to health coverage to
part-time instructors (the current matter).
4 The HCA agreed to class certification with only minimal disagreement on
the definition of the class.
5 'Issues not raised before the agency may not be raised on appeal . . . .'
RCW 34.05.554(1).
6 The HCA concluded that Mader and Knudsen were ineligible for employer
contributions during the summer quarter of 1999 based on an analysis under
WAC 182-12-115 because neither taught more than half-time. The superior
court determined that the HCA should not have based its analysis on WAC 182-
12-115 because Mader and Knudsen did not sign contracts for the summer
quarter and were therefore not 'employed' during that quarter. It appears
that because the superior court shifted the focus of the analysis from
whether the petitioners taught half-time or more to whether they signed
contracts, the respondents argued along the lines of the superior court's
analysis. This distinction is pointed out for clarification. It is not
particularly important to our consideration of the class certification
issue at this time.
7 Although petitioners argue their claims relate to summer quarters
generally, the HCA ruled only as to eligibility for the summer of 1999 and
did not otherwise comment on other summers. Review of the agency decision
is, therefore, limited to the summer of 1999 because we cannot say whether
the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law as to other summers
when there are no findings of facts or conclusions we can review. See
generally RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).
8 The 2002 legislature was reacting, in part, to the case before us
when it enacted RCW 49.44.160 and .170. The 2002 Final Legislative Report,
which became RCW 49.44.170, states, 'The practice of providing less
generous compensation to some contingent workers is sometimes justified on
the basis that the employer should provide more generous compensation to
persons who perform full-time services, or have performed services for a
longer period of time. In some cases, however, public employers use labels
to justify providing different levels of benefits to employees who have
rendered identical levels of service, for identical periods of time, for
the employer. . . .
'In recent years some public employers, such as Metro-King County, and
the State Board for Community Colleges, have been taken to court by
employees who claimed that they had been misclassified in some manner. . .
. A large case involving part-time community college faculty eligibility
for retirement and health benefits is still pending.' 2002 Final
Legislative Report, ESSB 5264, 57th Leg., Reg. Sess. 144 (2002).