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

1,586 chars

gave Cornwell the lowest possible review rating, and Cornwell was laid off. In light of

this evidence, the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment to Microsoft.

We reverse and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

19
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp.
No. 94846-1

WE CONCUR.

'7%U fiwA

7

20
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp., No. 94846-1
(Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting)

No. 94846-1

GORDON McCLOUD, J. (dissenting)—I agree with the majority's

main conclusion that a plaintiff can show retaliatory discharge in violation of the

Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), ROW 49.60.030, without

showing that the employer had actual knowledge of the plaintiffs prior protected

activity. A plaintiffs showing that the employer suspected that the plaintiff had

previously engaged in WLAD-protected activity is enough to establish the

causation requirement of a WLAD retaliatory discharge claim. Majority at 13-16.

But I disagree with the majority's application of that legal standard to

the facts of this case. The majority identifies nothing in the record showing that

Dawn Comwell's current supervisors knew or suspected that her prior lawsuit

involved the WLAD-prohibited activity of sex discrimination.

I say that because the majority holds that the following facts, alone,

suffice to satisfy the knowledge or suspicion element of WLAD causation: