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

1,676 chars

® Cornwell asks us to adopt the "general corporate knowledge" standard, which requires a
plaintiff to show that the employer generally had knowledge of the plaintiff's protected activity.
Kesslerv. Westchester County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 461 F.3d 199, 210(2d Cir. 2006). Under
this standard, the jury can still find retaliation in circumstances where the particular decision-
maker denies actual knowledge of the plaintiff's protected activities, "so long as . . . the jury
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp.
No. 94846-1

a. Actual Knowledge

Cornwell has presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment under

the actual knowledge standard.

Both the Court of Appeals and several federal courts require that the employer

have actual knowledge of the employee's protected action in order to prove causation.

See, e.g., Mann v. King County, 194 Wn. App. 795, 813, 378 P.3d 203, review denied,

186 Wn.2d 1028, 385 P.3d 124 (2016)("Marin failed to show that anyone . . . knew

about his protected activity . . . , precluding his claim that employees . . . retaliated for

that activity. He identifies no evidence that supports his bare assertion that the entire

'chain of command' knew [about his protected activity]."); Raney v. VInson Guard

Serv., Inc., 120 F.3d 1192, 1197 (11th Cir. 1997)("In order to satisfy the 'causal link'

prong of a prima facie retaliation case, a plaintiff must, at a minimum, generally

establish that the defendant was actually aware of the protected expression at the

time the defendant took the adverse employment action.").^ Because retaliation is an