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

1,769 chars

activity, and because the parties did not brief the issue to us, we do not reach that

issue on appeal.® We instead address only whether Cornwell presented sufficient

evidence to show a potential causal link between her performance rating score, her

termination, and her prior lawsuit.

II. Causation

Microsoft argues that Cornwell failed to present sufficient evidence to create an

issue of material fact that there is a causal link between her prior lawsuit and the

adverse employment action taken against her. We disagree for the following reasons.

The second element of the prima facie test is not at issue. It is undisputed that Cornwell
received a poor performance evaluation rating and was terminated. CP at 144-45. The poor
rating prevented Cornwell from being considered for future rehlrlng. CP at 219-20. This
undoubtedly qualifies as an adverse employment action. See Jin Zhu v. N. Cent. Educ. Serv.
Dist.—ESD 171, 189 Wn.2d 607, 619, 404 P.Sd 504 (2017) ('"An employment action Is
adverse If It Is harmful to the point that It would dissuade a reasonable employee from making
complaints of. . . retaliation.'" (Internal quotation marks omitted)(quoting Boyd v. State, 187
Wn. App. 1, 15, 349 P.Sd 864 (2015))).
5 Because the Issue Is not before us, for purposes of this appeal we assume that Cornwell's
prior legal action against Microsoft constituted protected activity under W1_AD.

8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp.
No. 94846-1

An employee proves causation "by showing that retaliation was a substantial

factor motivating the adverse employment decision." Allison v. Hous. Auth., 118

Wn.2d 79, 96, 821 P.2d 34 (1991). At the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff's