Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/723421.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,167 chars

the independent consultant found Shenk's reviews to be "off the
charts negative," which precipitated Shenk putting Lodis on
probation.
Part of Lodis's probation required him to meet and discuss
his working relationships with his colleagues. Shenk terminated
Lodis for cause on March 26, 2008, for failing to meet the terms of
his probation. Lodis allegedly lied to Shenk about meeting with the
people who reported directly to him and failed to improve his
relationship with them. Corbis claims this is the actual reason for
Lodis's termination, along with ongoing performance issues and
retaliation against another employee regarding a sexual
harassment claim. Lodis counters that the performance review and
probation were pretextual in order to fire Lodis for his complaints
about Shenk's purported age discrimination.
Three months after his termination, Lodis sued Corbis and
Shenk, alleging age discrimination under RCW 49.60.180 and
retaliation under RCW 49.60.210. Judge Michael Hayden granted
Corbis's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim. . . .
At trial, Judge Bruce Heller denied . . . Lodis's requests to . ..
reinstate his retaliation claim.