Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 701282.pdf

5 Though NSI's notice of appeal to this court lists five orders, NSI only
assigns error to and argues four: the court's denial of NSI's motion for summary
judgment, judgment, findings and conclusions on liability, and findings and
conclusions on damages. NSI appears to have abandoned its appeal of the
court's order denying NSI's motions to dismiss Currier's first amended and
original complaints, and we decline to review it. An issue not briefed is deemed
waived. Kadoranian v. Bellinaham Police Dep't, 119 Wn.2d 178, 191, 829 P.2d
1061 (1992). And because we conclude that Currier established a prima facie
case of retaliation, we do not address NSI's appeal of the trial court's denial of
summary judgment.
6 State v. Ross, 106 Wn. App. 876, 880, 26 P.3d 298 (2001).
7 State v. Lew, 156 Wn.2d 709, 733, 132 P.3d 1076 (2006).
s Fisher Props.. Inc. v. Arden-Mavfair. Inc., 115 Wn.2d 364, 369-70, 798
P.2d 799 (1990).
             
NO. 70128-2-1/6

ANALYSIS

RCW 49.60.030 and .210

The Washington Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the WLAD

expresses a "'public policy of the highest priority.'"9 The legislature enacted the

WLAD to eliminate and prevent discrimination in Washington.10 The legislature

has directed that the provisions of the WLAD "shall be construed liberally for the

accomplishment of the purposes thereof."11

RCW 49.60.030 is entitled "Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of

civil rights" and states in relevant part,