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
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
Full Text
1,770 charsis seldom appropriate" in the employment discrimination context, MIkkelsen v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Kittltas County, 189 Wn.2d 516, 527, 404 P.3d 464 (2017). We must also "consider all facts and make all reasonable factual inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Scrivener, 181 Wn.2d at 444. ANALYSIS We reverse the Court of Appeals. Cornwell has presented sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case that Microsoft retaliated against her in violation of WLAD. This evidence was adequate to create an issue of fact about whether there was a causal link between her prior suit and Microsoft's decision to give her a poor review rating and terminate her. Under either the "actual knowledge" standard or the "knew or suspected" standard, Cornwell presented sufficient evidence of the employer knowledge necessary to show causation. Ultimately, summary judgment was Improper, and we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp. No. 94846-1 I. Retaliation under WLAD WI_AD proscribes discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, sexuai orientation, and other protected characteristics. RCW 49.60.030. WLAD also prohibits employers from retaliating against empioyees who oppose discriminatory practices. RCW 49.60.210(1). To further these purposes, the legislature has directed us to iiberaliy construe the provisions of WLAD. RCW 49.60.020. When evaluating the merits of cases brought under WLAD, we employ the McDonnell Douglas^ "evidentiary burden-shifting" framework. MIkkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 526. This framework involves three steps, but we are concerned with only the first