Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 701282.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 701282.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,793 chars
supports the trial court's findings, and these findings support the court's

conclusion that Currier was engaging in statutorily protected conduct.

Causal Link

The final element of a prima facie case of retaliation requires proof of a

causal link between the opposition and the adverse employment action. To

prove a causal link between his opposition and NSI's termination of his contract,

Currier must provide evidence that his complaints about Howell's remarks were a

"substantial factor" motivating NSI's decision.30 Thus, retaliation need not be the

main reason behind the discharge decision but instead need only be the reason

which "tips the scales" toward termination.31

29 Estevez, 129 Wn. App. at 798; Kahn, 90 Wn. App. at 130; Graves, 76
Wn. App. at 712 (citing Gifford, 685 F.2d at 1157).
30 Allison, 118 Wn.2d at 96; Estevez, 129 Wn. App. at 800.
31 Wilmot, 118Wn.2dat72.

-11-
             
NO. 70128-2-1/12

"'Because employers rarely will reveal they are motivated by retaliation,

plaintiffs ordinarily must resort to circumstantial evidence to demonstrate

retaliatory purpose.'"32 Proximity in time between the protected activity and the

discharge, as well as satisfactory work performance and evaluations before the

discharge, are both factors suggesting retaliation.33 And if an employee

establishes that he or she participated in statutorily protected opposition activity,

the employer knew about the opposition activity, and the employee was then

discharged, a rebuttable presumption of retaliation arises that precludes

summary dismissal of the case.34

NSI maintains that it terminated Currier's contract because of poor

performance and disruptive behavior. According to Sleeth and Franssen,