dissenting.

, Circuit City Stores, Inc. (“Circuit City”) appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of Mohammed Al-Safin’s employment discrimination claims. The majority opinion affirms, holding that certain provisions of Circuit City’s Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures (“DRRP”) in effect, in 1998 are substantively unconscionable under Washington law and that these unconscionable provisions pervade the entire arbitration agreement such that any attempt to sever those provisions would render the resulting procedure unworkable. Op. at 1260-62.

I believe that the majority opinion errs in its initial premise — that is, that it is the DRRP in effect in 1998 that are at issue. Rather, I believe that the modification provision in Rule 19 of the DRRP in effect in 1998 is enforceable under Washington law (or, at the very least, that there is sufficient doubt as to certify that question to the Washington Supreme Court) and, thus, that it is the DRRP in effect at the time Al-Safin ultimately files his Arbitration Request Form and accompanying filing fee that govern the arbitration here. Further, the DRRP in effect in 2003 are not substantively unconscionable under Washington law. Accordingly, I would reverse (or, at the very least, certify the relevant questions to the Washington Supreme Court) and, thus, respectfully dissent.

I.

As the majority opinion sets forth, Al-Safin applied for a job at Circuit City in June 1997. Before he submitted his application, he signed an arbitration agreement that bound Al-Safin to resolve all disputes arising out of his employment relationship with Circuit City in accordance with the DRRP. Rule 19 of the DRRP in effect at the time Al-Safin applied for his job stated:

(Emphasis added).

At year end 1997, Circuit City amended Rule 19. 1 Al-Safin continued working at Circuit City until his employment was terminated in November 1998. There is no issue raised by Al-Safin that he did not receive reasonable notice of the December 31,1997 change to Rule 19. Indeed, as the majority opinion correctly notes, “Al-Safin does not dispute that Circuit City effectively implemented the 1998 DRRP.” Op. at 1259 n. 3.

The December 31, 1997 amendment to Rule 19 — and, thus, Rule 19 of the DRRP *1264 in effect in 1998 — provided in relevant part:

(Emphasis added). As the majority opinion correctly concludes, “[t]he result of this modification would be that any arbitration filed in 2003 would be governed by the DRRP in effect in 2003, as opposed to the DRRP in effect when the claim arose.” Op. at 1256.

The, threshold and determinative question, then, is whether the DERP in effect in 1998, when Al-Safin’s employment was terminated and his employment discrimination claim arose, govern the arbitration, rather than the DRRP in effect at the time Al-Safin ultimately files with Circuit City the Arbitration Request Form and accompanying fee. The plain meaning of the modification provision in Rule 19 of the DRRP in effect at the time Al-Safin’s employment was terminated in 1998 admits of no doubt: If he sought arbitration and paid the arbitration fee immediately upon termination or at any time before December 31, 1998, his arbitration would be governed by the DRRP in effect in 1998. If he tarried, he ran the risk that newer arbitration' rules would be adopted'which would be less beneficial to him. On the other hand, delay could bring rules that would comparatively benefit him, which, in the event, is what happened.

Nevertheless, the majority opinion concludes that the DRRP in effect in 1998 are applicable for two reasons. First, according to the majority opinion, “ ‘an employer’s unilateral change in policy will not be effective [under Washington law] until employees receive reasonable notice of the change’ and accept the change” and that Circuit City did not provide “ ‘reasonable notice’ to former employees like Al-Safin” nor did Al-Safin “continue his employment with Circuit City, sign an acceptance, or accept the modification of the[substantive arbitration rules of the] 1998 DRRP in any other way.” Op. at 1260. Second, according to the majority opinion, “[t]he modification provision allows Circuit City to alter the rules and procedures governing arbitration almost at will” and, thus, “Rule 19, which permits this conduct, is substantively unconscionable under Washington law and ... the modification provision is therefore unenforceable.” Op. at 1259.

I believe that the majority opinion errs in both regards and, thus, believe that the DRRP in effect at the time Al-Safin ultimately files with Circuit City the Arbitration Request Form and accompanying fee, rather than the DRRP in effect in 1998, govern the arbitration.

A.

In concluding that “ ‘an employer’s unilateral change in policy will not be effective [under Washington law] until employees receive reasonable notice of the change’ and accept the change,” Op. at 1260, the majority opinion relies solely on Gaglidari v. Denny’s Restaurants, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 426 , 815 P.2d 1362 (1991) (en banc). There, Denny’s hired Gaglidari to work as a bartender and, on her first day of work, provided her with a copy of the 1979 employee handbook. Id. at 1364. The 1979 employee handbook contained a provision stating that fighting while on duty was grounds for immediate dismissal, but provided for “counseling review and review by a certain level manager” for rule *1265 infractions not covered by the immediate dismissal provision. Id. In 1986, Denny’s gave Gaglidari an “alcoholic beverage handbook,” which' contained a provision' stating that fighting while on company premises, whether or not while on duty, was grounds for immediate dismissal. Id. In 1987, while off duty, Gaglidari was involved in a fight at a Denny’s and was fired shortly thereafter. Id. at 1364-65. Gaglidari sued Denny’s for breach of the employment contract as set forth in the 1979 employee handbook, and the jury returned a verdict for Gaglidari. Id. at 1365.

On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the judgment entered upon such verdict and remanded for a new trial, holding that the 1979 employee handbook gave rise to a contract but that its terms were modified by the alcoholic beverage handbook that Gaglidari received in 1986. Id. at 1365-66. Although acknowledging that “[a]n employer may unilaterally amend or revoke policies and procedures established in an employee handbook,” the court cited to Bankey v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 432 Mich. 438 , 443 N.W.2d 112, 113 (1989), for the proposition that “an employer’s unilateral change in policy will not be effective until employees receive reasonable notice of the change.” Gaglidari, 815 P.2d at 1367 . Quoting Bankey, the court continued: “ ‘An employer may, without an express reservation of the right to do so, unilaterally change its written policy from one of discharge for cause to one of termination at will, provided that the employer gives affected employees reasonable notice of the policy change.’ ” Id. (emphasis added). The court reasoned: “The reasonable notice rule of Bankey is persuasive because it is unfair to place the burden of discovering policy changes on the employee. While the employee is bound by unilateral acts of the employer, it is incumbent upon the employer to inform employees of its actions.” Id. The court then concluded that the 1986 alcoholic beverage handbook did achieve a modification of the employment contract:

Id. at 1367-68 (internal citation omitted; emphasis added).

With that background, it is clear that Gaglidari is inapposite and that the reasonable-notice requirement it announced is not nearly so broad as the majority opinion suggests.

First, contrary to what the majority opinion asserts, Op. at 1259-60, the reasonable-notice requirement is satisfied by notice alone, regardless whether the employee accepts the change in policy. Again contrary to what the majority opinion assumes, Op. at 1259-60, the sole articulated purpose of the reasonable-notice requirement is not to afford the at-will employee an opportunity to accept, reject or negotiate an offer from the employer. Rather, as the court in Gaglidari stated: “The reasonable notice rule of Bankey is persuasive because it is unfair to place the burden of, discovering policy changes on the employee.” 815 P.2d at 1367 (emphasis added). In other words, it would be unfair to allow an employee — even an employee at will — to be fired for a rule violation, if the rule had not been made known to her. Thus, the court in Gaglidari held *1266 alternatively that the”[p]laintiffs receipt of the [1986 alcoholic beverage] handbook satisfied the requisites of contract formation” and that, because the “[p]laintiff had notice of the provisions of the handbook,” “[t]he handbook also achieved a unilateral modification of defendant’s policies.” Id. at 1367-68. Nothing in Gaglidari varied the well-settled common-law principles of at-will employment: the terms of employment and of its termination are set by the employer.

This interpretation of the scope and purpose served by Gaglidari’s reasonable-notice requirement was confirmed in Govier v. North Sound Bank, 91 Wash.App. 493 , 957 P.2d 811, 813-14 (1998), wherein a bank presented Govier with an employment agreement that changed the terms of her employment. Govier refused to sign the agreement, was fired, and then sued for breach of contract under the prior terms of employment. Id. at 814. The trial court granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment. Id. On appeal to the Washington Court of Appeals, Govier contended that although the bank had presented her with the new terms, she did not have “reasonable notice” because she had not been notified of the changes a reasonable length of time before their effective date. Id. at 816. She reasoned that “the reasonable notice requiremént is necessary ‘to give the employee an opportunity to make a reasoned decision about whether to stay or leave.’ ” Id. The court rejected this argument, holding that the purpose of the reasonable notice requirement is merely to inform employees of policy changes because “ ‘it is unfair to place the burden of discovering policy changes on the employee.’ ” Id. at 817 (emphasis in original). 2

. Thus, the fact that “Al~Safin did not continue his employment with Circuit City, sign an acceptance, or accept the modifica *1267 tion of the [substantive arbitration rules of the] 1998 DRRP in any other way,” Op. at 1260, would have been irrelevant under Gaglidari had Al-Safin been employed with Circuit City at the time the modifications were made and, contrary to the majority opinion’s assertion otherwise, Op. at 1260 n. 4, can be no less irrelevant under the circumstances here. As explained above, Gaglidari’s reasonable-notice requirement neither requires nor is premised upon the employee having an opportunity to accept, reject or negotiate changes in employment policies — regardless when those changes occur. Further, it bears repeating, by virtue of continuing his employment with Circuit City after the December 31, 1997 amendment to Rule 19 went into effect, Al-Safin assented to the modification provision itself.

Second, the fact that Al-Safin may not have received reasonable notice of the modifications made to the substantive provisions in the DRRP from 1998 to 2003 is likewise irrelevant under Gaglidari . As explained above, the purpose of the reasonable-notice requirement is to inform employees of policy changes because “it is unfair to place the burden of discovering policy changes on the employee.” Gaglidari, 815 P.2d at 1367 ; accord Govier, 957 P.2d at 817 . This prevents situations in which employees are fired or suffer other adverse employment action on the basis of conduct that had been permissible but later was made impermissible by an unpublicized policy. See Thompson, 685 P.2d at 1087.

Thus, the reasonable-notice requirement serves no purpose once the employment relationship has ended. Why give notice of new rules to former employees who can no longer be fired for their violations? To insist on the necessity of “reasonable notice” in such circumstances is to venerate an abstraction. See United States v. Griefen, 200 F.3d 1256, 1263 (9th Cir.2000) (“Cessante ratione-' legis, cessat et ipsa lex[.] (The reason of the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases).”); ATU Legislative Council of Washington v. Washington, 145 Wash.2d 544 , 40 P.3d 656, 661 (2002) (en banc) (same); State ex rel. King County v. Superior Court of Pierce County, 104 Wash. 268 , 176 P. 352 , 355 (1918) (“The law being founded in reason boasts as its first cardinal principle that, when the reason for the law ceases, the law itself ceases.”). Indeed, there appear to be no Washington cases — including Gaglidari— in which the reasonable-notice requirement was invoked when the change in employee policies occurred after the employment relationship had terminated.

Here, there is no claim that Al-Safin’s employment was terminated because of a violation of the modification provision in Rule 19 of the DRRP in effect in 1998. Likewise, the modifications made to the substantive provisions in the DRRP from 1998 to 2003 — all of which occurred after Al-Safin’s employment was terminated— had no bearing on why Al-Safin’s employment was terminated; rather, they concern only the manner in which the arbitration is to occur. In brief: As the reason for the reasonable-notice requirement does not exist, neither does the rule.

Third, unlike Circuit City, the employer in Gaglidari did not reserve its right to make changes to the employee handbook. The Michigan case on which Gaglidari relies in setting forth the reasonable-notice requirement suggests that the requirement is limited to situations in which the employer does not make such a reservation:

Gaglidari, 815 P.2d at 1367 (quoting Bankey, 443 N.W.2d at 113 ) (emphasis added). Such reservations or disclaimers are well-recognized under Washington law. Thompson, 685 P.2d at 1088 (“[T]he employer may specifically reserve a right to modify [employment] policies, or write them in.a manner that retains discretion to the employer.”).

This distinction is not without substance given the discussion above explaining that the reasonable-notice requirement is required not to permit for an acceptance or rejection of an employer’s offer by the employee, but rather because it provides the basis for the justifiable reliance on which a promissory estoppel theory might be based. Where the employer has made a disclaimer — that is, has reserved the right to make changes — employees cannot justifiably rely on the previously outlined policies.

Neither Gaglidari nor its reasonable-notice requirement are applicable here.

B.

The majority opinion correctly concludes that whether the provisions of the DRRP are unconscionable is a question of Washington law. Op. at 1258. But in concluding that modification provision in Rule 19 of the DRRP in effect in 1998 “is substantively unconscionable under Washington law and that the modification provision is therefore unenforceable,” the majority opinion cites no Washington law at all. Op. at 1260. Instead, the majority opinion relies on two Ninth Circuit cases that purport to interpret California law, Op. at 1259, and presumably on its later conclusion that “California applies virtually the same definition of substantive unconsciona-bility as Washington.” Op. at 1261. ■

To begin, the two Ninth Circuit cases on which the majority opinion relies — Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 328 F.3d 1165, 1179 (9th Cir.2003), and Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Mantor, 335 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir.2003) — themselves cite no state cases that discuss whether, let 'alone hold that, the modification provisions at issue or even similar modification provisions are substantively unconscionable. Thus, their analyses of California law on this point are not so thorough that we should reflexively import their holdings to Washington law.

■ Moreover, there is good reason not to do so here, even though the Washington Supreme Court has cited with approval Ninth Circuit cases interpreting California law in adjudicating the unconscionability of terms quite different from the modification provision at issue here, Op. at 1261 n. 6, and even if it is correct that as a general matter California law and Washington law on unconscionability are similar. Specifically, although there appear to be no Washington cases addressing whether the provision at issue or one similar to it is substantively unconscionable, the Washington Supreme Court has long held in no uncertain terms that an employer may reserve the right unilaterally to change the terms of an employment relationship: “[T]he employer may specifically reserve a right to modify [employment] policies or write them in a manner that retains discretion to the employer.” Thompson, 685 P.2d at 1088. Gaglidari affirmed this principle, and its reasonable-notice requirement in no way undercut the employer’s ability to make unilateral changes: “An employer may unilaterally amend or revoke policies and procedures established in an employee handbook. However, an employer’s unilateral change in policy will not be effective until employees receive reasonable notice of the change.” 815 P.2d at- 1367 (emphasis added; internal citations omitted).

*1269 Further, the majority opinion overlooks the salient fact that under Rule 19 of the DRRP in effect at the time Al-Safin’s employment was terminated, Circuit City could not have acted “unilaterally” in changing the DRRP until the end of the year. Thus, Al-Safin, whose employment was terminated in November 1998, had over a full month in which he could have insured himself of arbitration under the then-current DRRP by taking action: requesting arbitration and tendering the filing fee before December 31, 1998. Under Washington law, voluntarily refusing to invoke rights in a timely manner may in some contexts constitute a waiver of those rights. See, e.g., International Association of Firefighters, Local No. 469 v. Public Employment Relations Commission of Washington, 38 Wash.App. 572 , 686 P.2d 1122, 1125-27 (1984) (holding that although a union’s waiver of statutorily protected bargaining rights and its concomitant assent to unilateral employer action in lieu of collective bargaining must be “intentional and voluntary,” a failure timely to request negotiations following actual knowledge of the employer’s intentions where there is sufficient time to “meaningfully” do so constitutes waiver). Whether Al-Safin’s inactivity amounted to a waiver or consent, and whether that waiver or consent could change the character of any subsequent modifications to the DRRP from “unilateral” to “consented to” or “mutual” is a question of Washington law. It was not a question raised in either of our cases involving the enforceability of Circuit City’s arbitration agreements under California law.

Thus, I am not nearly so confident as are my colleagues that the modification provision in Rule 19 of the DRRP in effect in 1998 is substantively unconscionable under Washington law. 3 At the very least, the absence of Washington law directly on point, coupled with the Thompson and Gglidari line of cases and Al-Safin’s ability to have invoked the substantive provisions of the DRRP in effect in 1998, create sufficient doubt about the relevance of In-gle and Mantor to warrant our certifying the question to the Washington Supreme Court. 4

II.

Because I believe that the modification provision in Rule 19 of the DRRP in effect in 1998 is enforceable under Washington law, I would find that the DRRP in effect at the time Al-Safin files his Arbitration Request Form and accompanying filing fee govern the arbitration. Although Al-Safin did not file his Arbitration Request Form and accompanying filing fee prior to 2003, the record does not indicate whether he has since filed the appropriate form and fee or whether Circuit City has promulgated DRRP beyond those in 2003. Thus, it is not evident whether the DRRP in effect in 2003 or some later DRRP are applicable.

Assuming, however, that the DRRP in effect in 2003 are applicable, Al-Safin concedes that these rules were substantially revised such that many of the substantively unconscionable provisions in the earlier rules were removed. In fact, he argues that only two provisions beyond the modi *1270 fication provision discussed above are substantively unconscionable. •

First, Al-Safin argue's that the DRRP in effect in 2003 include a provision that requires arbitration decisions to be confidential and, thus, is substantively unconscionable both because it places Circuit City in “ ‘a far superior legal posture by ensuring that none of its opponents have access to precedent’ ” and because “ ‘the unavailability of arbital decisions may prevent potential plaintiffs from obtaining the information needed to build a case of intentional misconduct or unlawful discrimination.’ ” However, Rule 12 of the DRRP in effect in 2003 states: “Associates who have agreed to arbitration may request copies of arbitration decisions in a given case.” Thus, the ' confidentiality provision is not so “ ‘one-sided or overly harsh’ ” so as to be “ ‘[sjhoeking to the conscience,’ ” “ ‘monstrously harsh,’ ” 'or “ ‘exceedingly calloused’ ” and, thus, substantively unconscionable. See Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wash.2d 124 , 896 P.2d 1258, 1262 (1995) (en banc).

Second, Al-Safin argues that the DRRP in effect in 2003 prohibit class or consolidated arbitrations and that this is substantively unconscionable. Again, there appears to be no Washington law addressing whether such provisions are substantively unconscionable. See Stein v. Geonerco, Inc., 105 Wash.App. 41 , 17 P.3d 1266 , 1271 & n. 2 (2001) (noting that “Washington courts have not specifically addressed class arbitration,” and holding that the court “cannot compel class arbitration”, in the absence of “relevant statutory provisions that authorize class arbitration,” but not reaching whether “due process and policy grounds” may otherwise “permit[] class arbitration”). However, an analogous line of cases suggests that the Washington courts would not find the provision substantively unconscionable on the facts here.'

In Mendez v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 111 Wash.App. 446 , 45 P.3d 594, 597, 601, 603 (2002), the trial court denied a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement, holding that the agreement was unconscionable because the “prohibitive entry costs of arbitration compared' to the entry costs of trial” “effectively preclude[d] [Mendez] from pursuing his claims against Palm Harbor.” Importantly, costs so prohibitive as to deter arbitration is the implicit concern that led the Ninth Circuit to conclude on the basis of California law that the provision in Circuit City’s arbitration agreements that preclude class or consolidated arbitration is substantively unconscionable. See Ingle, 328 F.3d at 1176 (“Circuit City, through its bar on class-wide arbitration, seeks to insulate itself from class proceedings while conferring no corresponding benefit to its employees in return.”); see also Mantor, 335 F.3d at 1107 & n. 14 (citing Ingle, 328 F.3d at 1175-76 ). The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed, “approving] a new rule for this State allowing an equitable and legal prohibitive cost defense to contractually agreed arbitration,” Mendez, 45 P.3d at 597, but limiting the defense to “when the party opposing arbitration reasonably shows in law or equity that prohibitive costs are likely to render the arbitral forum inaccessible.” Id. at 605 (emphasis added); accord Heaphy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 117 Wash.App. 438 , 72 P.3d 220, 224-25 (2003) (rejecting prohibitive cost defense in the absence of any evidence of prohibitive costs). The Washington Supreme Court has recently approved this approach. Zuver v. Airtouch Communications, Inc., 103 P.3d 753, 762-63 , 2004 WL 3016484 , at *6-7 (Wash.2004) (en banc); Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 103 P.3d 773, 786 , No. 74701-6, 2004 WL 3016302 , at *9 (Wash.2004) (en banc). Al-Safin has made no claim nor showing of *1271 prohibitive costs which would render the arbital forum inaccessible. Neither has he evinced any interest in initiating a class or consolidated arbitration. Absent such predicate showing, Washington law would not hold the relevant provision of the DRRP unconscionable.

Further, even if the provision that there be no class or consolidated arbitration were unconscionable, it could be severed pursuant to the severance provision in Rule 18 of the DRRP in effect in 2008. Zuver, 103 P.3d at 768 , 2004 WL 3016484 , at *11 (noting that “when parties have agreed to a severability clause in an arbitration agreement, courts often strike the offending unconscionable provisions to preserve the contract’s essential term of arbitration,” and doing so when “faced with only two unconscionable provisions”); Adler, 103 P.3d at 788-89 , 2004 WL 3016302 , at *12 (holding that where the “arbitration agreement contains just two substantively unconscionable provisions” and where “[t]he primary thrust of [the] agreement is the agreement to arbitrate,” the court can sever those terms “without disturbing the primary intent of the parties to arbitrate their disputes”).

III.

The kernel of truth in this case is that Al-Safín is so desirous to litigate in federal district court rather than to arbitrate, that he refuses to accept the substantial concessions that Circuit City made when it promulgated its new DRRP in 2003 relative to the DRRP that obtained and which were within Al-Safin’s reach when his employment was terminated in 1998. Instead, he lashes himself to the DRRP in effect in 1998 (except for the modification provision in Rule 19) in the apparently well-founded hope that this court would find the substantive provisions in those DRRP so unconscionable the arbitration agreement as a whole must founder. By holding that the modification provision in Rule 19 of the DRRP in effect in 1998 is unenforceable and that various other provisions in the same DRRP are substantively unconscionable, the majority opinion accedes to Al-Safin and, in so doing, contravenes Washington law.

I believe that the modification provision in Rule 19 of the DRRP in effect in 1998 is enforceable under Washington law or, at the very least, that there is sufficient doubt as to certify that question, and the further question whether Al-Safin’s inaction in late 1998 rendered the modification provision “mutual” rather than “unilateral,” to the Washington Supreme Court. I believe further that the provisions in the DRRP in effect in 2003 to which Al-Safin objects are not substantively unconscionable under Washington law. Accordingly, I would reverse the district court’s denial of Circuit City’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration (or, at the very least, certify the relevant questions to the Washington Supreme Court) and, thus, respectfully dissent.

. Although the DRRP in effect in 1998 are dated as of January 1998, the DRRP in effect in 1997 permitted Circuit City to alter or terminate the DRRP only on December 31 of any year. Thus, the DRRP in effect in 1998 must have resulted from amendments on December 31, 1997.

. This interpretation also finds support in Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219 , 685 P.2d 1081 (1984) (en banc), wherein the Washington Supreme Court first enunciated the principle that an at-will employment relationship could be modified by an émploy-ee handbook. There, Thompson was asked to resign because he " 'stepped on somebody's toes.' " Id. at 1083. No other reason was given. Id. Thompson sued for breach of contract, and the company moved for summary judgment, arguing that the employment relationship was terminable at will. Id. Thompson responded with the company's "Policy and Procedural Guide," which he argued provided that he could be fired only for cause. Id. at 1084. The trial court granted the company's motion. Id.

On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding first that "the employer’s right to terminate an at will employee can be contractually modified and, thus, qualified by statements contained in employee policy manuals or handbooks issued by employers to their employees.” Id. at 1087. Under this "contractual analysis,” "the requi- ■. sites of contract formation, offer, acceptance and consideration are necessary predicates to establishing that policies in an employment manual are part of the employees' original employment contract or part of the employment contract as modified by the parties.” Id.

Continuing, the court held: “Independent of this contractual analysis, however, ... employers may be obligated to act in accordance with policies as announced in handbooks issued to their employees.” Id. (emphasis added). Relying on a promissory estoppel theory, the court reasoned:

Id. at 1087-88 (emphasis in original).

. Why the DRRP in effect in 2003, made applicable to the arbitration here by the plain text of the modification provision in Rule 19 of the DRRP in effect in 1998, are themselves not unconscionable is discussed in Part II below.

. Washington provides for certification pursuant to Revised Code of Washington § 2.60.020 and Washington Rule of Appellate Procedure 16.16(a) where there is a question of state law that has not been "clearly determined” and its resolution is necessary to the disposition of the proceeding in federal court.