25 Silver, 586 F.2d at 141; see also Little v. United Techs.. Carrier
Transicold Div., 103 F.3d 956, 959-60 (11th Cir. 1997) ("Based on the facts of
this case, we conclude that Wilmot's racially offensive comment alone is not
attributable to Carrier and, accordingly, Little's opposition to the remark did not
constitute opposition to an unlawful employment practice.").
26 Trent v. Valley Elec. Ass'n, 41 F.3d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1994) (concluding
that plaintiff's reasonable belief that it was unlawful for her to be subjected to a
series of sexually offensive remarks at a seminar her employer required her to
attend would support a finding that she engaged in "protected activity" for
purposes of a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge).
27 Rav v Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000); see also
Movo v. Gomez, 40 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding black prison guard's
belief that inmates were entitled to Title VII protection reasonable).
28 Movo, 40 F.3d at 985. The Movo court also noted that "it has been long
established that Title VII, as remedial legislation, is construed broadly." 40 F.3d
at 985.
-10-
NO. 70128-2-1/11
held that a plaintiff need not prove the conduct opposed was in fact
discriminatory but need show only that he or she reasonably believed it was
discriminatory.29
RCW 49.60.030(1 )(a) guarantees "[t]he right to obtain and hold
employment without discrimination." The trial court found that Currier reasonably
believed that a white driver telling a Latino driver, on the job, that "f**ing
Mexicans are good at crossing borders" was a discriminatory practice and that he
opposed this practice by reporting it to an NSI employee. Substantial evidence