Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/948461.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,616 chars

Seven years later, Cornwell's new manager, Mary Anne Blake, asked Cornwell

to mentor under another Microsoft employee. After learning that the employee

reported to Parsons, Cornwell told Blake that she could not mentor under the

employee. Blake asked Cornwell why, and Cornwell responded that it was because

she had filed a "lawsuit"^ against Microsoft and could not report to Parsons. Cornwell

also told Blake that the suit involved a review score issue and was confidential. Blake

sought more information about the lawsuit from human resources and her direct

supervisor, Nicole McKinley. Human resources did not have any information on file

about the lawsuit and promised to follow up on the issue.

^ Cornwell and Blake referred to CornweH's previous legal action against Microsoft as a
"lawsuit." We refer to that activity using the same terminology.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp.
No. 94846-1

Meanwhile, Blake told Cornwell that she had Inquired about the lawsuit with

human resources but that they did not have any further information. She also asked

Cornwell what would happen if her team needed to merge with Parsons' team.

Cornwell informed Blake that she was unable to discuss the lawsuit further because

of the confidentiality agreement and expressed dissatisfaction that Blake had

contacted human resources about the matter.

Shortly after Cornwell told her about the suit, Blake conducted a mandatory

performance review of Cornwell. During that year, Cornwell had received positive

reviews from her peers: