Dmitri Iglitzin is a partner in the firm of Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP. He received his B.A. from Yale University, 1983, magna cum laude, and his J.D. from the University of Michigan School of Law, 1986, magna cum laude. Mr. Iglitzin was formerly a law clerk for Chief Judge Barbara Rothstein, United States District Court, Western District of Washington.   He was formerly an assistant professor of law at the University of Washington School of Law and has taught labor law there in recent years as an adjunct professor of law.

Mr. Iglitzin's practice is centered on union-side labor and employment law, and he spends most of his time advising and representing public- and private-sector labor unions in local, state, and federal proceedings.  The scope of his practice also includes representing unions in land use issues, federal contracting disputes, criminal proceedings, and a wide variety of other civil and administrative matters.  

Mr. Iglitzin also advises unions regarding campaign finance issues, e.g., compliance with IRS and Public Disclosure Commission requirements.

Among Mr. Iglitzin's most notable legal accomplishments is the case of Wingert v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., which resulted in a decision by the Washington State Supreme Court holding that all employees in Washington State have a legally enforceable right to a paid ten-minute rest period after every three consecutive hours of work.  Mr. Iglitzin has been named a "Washington State Super Lawyer" by Washington Law & Politics Magazine every year since 2007.  He was also honored in 2010 as Washington State Jobs With Justice's "Movement Lawyer."

His editorials have appeared in The Los Angeles Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Tacoma News Tribune, Spokane's The Spokesman-Review, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Washington Examiner, among other newspapers, and on popular websites such as The Huffington Post, The Nation, and Truthout.org.

Representative Work

• Ackley-Bell v. Seattle School District (worker injured during collective bargaining has valid workers compensation  claim against employer
  
  
• Teamsters Local 174 v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway  (Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibits federal courts  from enjoining NLRA union from picketing RLA-covered employer)
  
  
• Wingert et. Al. v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. private cause of action exists for workers who are denied ten-minute paid rest periods)
  
  
• Sergeant v. Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific   (union acted lawfully under the Labor-Management Reporting  and Disclosure Act in denying casual employee members' right to vote on proposed collective bargaining agreement)
  
  
• SEIU Healthcare 775NW v. Governor Christine Gregoire  (Supreme Court refused to issue a writ of mandamus  ordering the Governor to comply with state statute relating to the contents of her biannual budget request to the Legislature)
  
  
• Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 286 v. Port of Seattle (arbitrator's decision to impose a 20-day      suspension on a worker who was fired for hanging a noose at work did not violate public policy)
  
  
• Inlandboatmens Union of the Pacific v. Dutra (union was required to exhaust grievance procedure instead of being able to sue employer directly for breach of a grievance settlement agreement)
  
  
• Air Line Pilots Association v. NLRB (NLRB erred in asserting jurisdiction over a union that predominately represents pilots with regard to a dispute that involved pilots, even though the union also represented a small number of NLRA-covered employees at the time the dispute arose) 

Recent Supreme Court Arguments

• Leya Rekhter, et al v. State of Washington ( Oral Argument) (2013)
• Department of Social and Health Services challenges a $90+ million jury judgment for breach of contractual duties toward in-home care providers represented by SEIU Healthcare 775NW.

• Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 286 v. Port of Seattle ( Oral Argument) (2012)
• Was an arbitrator's decision to reinstate, with a 20-day suspension, a worker who was fired for hanging a noose at work a violation of public policy?