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

1,566 chars

(1) Comwell's supervisors knew that she had previously brought a lawsuit against
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp., No. 94846-1
(Gordon McCIoud, J., dissenting)

Microsoft Corporation^,(2)those supervisors knew that the lawsuit had involved a

male supervisor, and (3)those supervisors knew that the lawsuit had involved a

review score. Id. at 2. Indeed, the majority accepts Microsoft's assertion that

Comwell's supervisors "did not know the specific nature of the lawsuit—i.e., that

it involved an allegation of discrimination in violation of WLAD." Id. at 11

(emphasis added). Thus, the majority ends up holding that because Comwell's

supervisor knew that her prior lawsuit had "involved a review score and male

supervisor," her present claim was entitled to survive Microsoft's motion for

summary judgment. Id. at 12(emphasis added).

I disagree. That analysis creates a standard that is both significantly

over-inclusive in certain respects and significantly under-inclusive in other respects.

The majority's analysis is over-inclusive because it assumes that a

female employee's lawsuit about a male supervisor and a review score could not

have alleged anything but sex discrimination. But that is incorrect. A female

employee could bring a lawsuit related to her review score and her male supervisor

that sounds in tort. Depending on the explanation that the male supervisor provided

for the review score that he gave his female employee,such a lawsuit might advance