During the 1980's the King County public defenders sought to obtain parity
with King County prosecutors.  Following a study initiated by King County,
King County decided expressly in 1989 to provide public defenders with the
same pay as prosecutors.  But King County did not agree to provide benefits
parity.  Thus, the King County public defenders and staff did not have the same
employee benefits, particularly retirement benefits, that their counterparts
in the Prosecutor's office received.  Over the years the King County public
defenders tried to obtain, for themselves and the public defense staff, employee
benefits including retirement benefits, that were the same as King County
employees.  King County continually refused to provide these benefits.

Kevin Dolan thought this was unfair.  He contacted David Stobaugh and Steve
Strong of Bendich, Stobaugh & Strong to determine whether the public defenders
and staff had a viable claim.  Our firm thoroughly investigated Dolan's claim for
more than two years using the Public Records Act to obtain thousands of pages
of King County documents showing County control of the public defense agencies. 
They determined that Dolan had a viable claim for PERS retirement benefits.

Thus, in January 2006, Kevin Dolan's class action lawsuit was filed against King
County on behalf of the lawyers and the staff of the King County public defense
agencies.  The complaint alleged that King County breached its duty to enroll
the lawyers and staff of the King County public defense agencies in the Public
Employees Retirement System (PERS) and that King County failed to pay required
PERS contributions to the Department of Retirement Systems (DRS).

King County denied liability and denied that plaintiffs were due any relief.  King
County asserted that it had no obligation to enroll the lawyers and staff of the
King County public defense agencies in PERS or to make contributions to PERS
on their behalf because the lawyers and staff of the King County public defense
agencies were not employees of King County and were instead employees of
those non-profit corporations that provided public defense services as independent
contractors to King County.  King County also asserted a counterclaim, which sought reimbursement from the Plaintiff and the members of the Class for monetary
contributions that King County might have to pay to PERS on their behalf due
to the litigation, if the case were successful.  King County also raised a statute of
limitations defense.

The Court, the Honorable John R. Hickman, decided that the case would be addressed
in three phases: (1) class certification, (2) liability, and (3) relief, if necessary.

Dolan moved to certify the class as a mandatory injunctive class action under
Civil Rule 23(b) (1) and (2) and the Court certified the class.  After the class was certified,
King County sought a summary judgment ruling that even if plaintiffs' claims were
successful, the statute of limitations would limit their claim for retroactive PERS service
to three years from the date of filing the complaint.  The complaint was filed on
January 24, 2006 and thus under King County's motion the class could not obtain relief
for service in any time period before January 24, 2003.  Plaintiffs opposed King County's
motion, arguing that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until a class
member's retirement.  The Court denied King County's motion on the statute of
limitations.  The Court said it was premature to decide the issue at that point and
reserved ruling on the statute of limitations until after the liability was decided.

After extensive discovery and numerous depositions, the parties moved for summary
judgment on liability.  The Court denied the cross-motions for summary judgment
because the material facts were in dispute.  After the summary judgment motions
were denied, the parties requested that the Court try the case on the written summary
judgment record.  The Court agreed and the Dolan case was tried before the Court in
November 2008.

After the trial and the Court's review of the extensive record, the Court issued a lengthy
written decision in favor of the class on liability and the Court later issued findings of
fact and conclusions of law and a permanent injunction requiring King County to
enroll currently employed class members in PERS.  (Copies of these can be found in
Case Documents above.)  The Court stayed the injunction while King County appealed.

The Washington Supreme Court agreed to hear King County's appeal.  In August 2011,
the Supreme Court issued its decision affirming the Court's decision on liability.
 Dolan v. King County, 172 Wn.2d 299 (2011).  The Supreme Court's decision was 5 to 4. 
(A copy of the decision can be found in Case Documents above.)

The Supreme Court held that King County "[had] exerted such a right of control over
the defender organizations as to make them agencies of the county ... and that under
Washington common law as adopted in RCW 41.40.010(12), the employees of the
defender organizations are employees of the county for purposes of PERS."

King County moved for reconsideration.  The State of Washington, the Washington
State Legislature, the Washington State Association of Counties, the Washington
State Association of County Officials, the Association of Washington Cities, and the
Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys joined King County in asking for reconsideration.  In its reconsideration motion, King County said that if reconsideration
was not granted, the King County public defenders and staff would be King County
employees for other purposes because the test is the same as used for PERS: