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
1,733 charsactions because they are suspected of having engaged in protected activity is consistent with the general purposes of the Act and the specific purposes of the anti- retaliation provisions." Id.(emphasis added); see also Brady v. Autozone Stores, Inc., 188 Wn.2d 576, 583, 397 P.3d 120 (2017) (recognizing that because a policy "ultimately provides greater protection for workers, it is more in tune with other Washington case law addressing employee rights"). As a result, as long as an employee presents evidence "suggest[ing] a causal connection between the protected activity and the subsequent adverse action sufficient to defeat summary judgment," that employee has made a prima facie case of retaliation under WLAD. Reich, 32 F.3d at 367. Microsoft and amid curiae the Association of Washington Business and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America contest adoption of the "knew or suspected" standard. They argue that adopting the standard leads to strict liability for employers, eliminates the causation element of a retaliation prima facie case, and invites speculation into the summary judgment phase. Of these arguments, none is persuasive. The "knew or suspected" test does not lead to strict liability or eliminate the requirement that a retaliation be intentional. Instead, the test eliminates the right of employers to intentionally retaliate against employees that they suspect but do not 17 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp. No. 94846-1 actually know to have taken protected action. An employee must still produce sufficient evidence that his or her protected activity was a substantial factor in the