Patten v. Ackerman

2 Citing cases

  1. Cote v. Derby Ins. Agency, Inc.

    908 N.W.2d 861 (Iowa 2018)   Cited 6 times

    The Washington Court of Appeals declined to apply that state’s family-member exception to a corporation that employed its owner’s family members. Patten v. Ackerman , 68 Wash.App. 831, 846 P.2d 567, 568–69 (1993). The Washington antidiscrimination statute defined "employer" to include a corporation that employs eight or more persons but "exclude[d] as employees any individual employed by his or her parents or spouse."

  2. Mikolajczak v. Mann

    406 P.3d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    This is fundamentally distinct from a corporation. An individual is not personally responsible for a corporation's employees even if the corporation is closely held. Patten v. Ackerman, 68 Wash.App. 831, 834-35, 846 P.2d 567 (1993).¶17 Nor can a sole proprietorship qualify as an "artificial person."