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

1,721 chars

The issue in the first motion is whether the same evidence of age
discrimination that was introduced in the first trial to prove that
Lodis' termination was based on his age is now admissible to prove
retaliatory discharge. Lodis cites Brundridge[6] for the proposition
that an employer's treatment of other employees is admissible to
show retaliatory discharge. That's true, but the treatment of the
other employees in Brundridge was retaliation, not any type of
discriminatory behavior. Thus, Brundridge would allow Lodis to
introduce evidence of retaliatory behavior by Shenk towards other
employees. Lodis will also be permitted to introduce evidence
concerning the alleged discriminatory behavior by Shenk that Lodis
admonished Shenk about. But alleged ageist statements by Shenk
that Lodis did not address with Shenk are inadmissible. Counsel
will recall that during the first trial the court ruled that alleged sexist
remarks by Shenk were not admissible to prove age discrimination.
The same logic applies here with respect to the connection
between ageist remarks and retaliatory motives.

b. Lodis Repeatedly and Surreptitiously Introduces Evidence
Excluded by the Trial Court's Order, Prompting Admission of the First Jury
Verdict.

In conjunction with his ruling that Lodis would be limited to introducing

evidence of alleged admonishments he made to Shenk, Judge Heller initially

ruled that evidence of the age discrimination verdict from the first trial would be

« Brundridge v. Fluor Fed. Servs.. Inc.. 164 Wn.2d 432, 191 P.3d 879 (2008).
             
No. 72342-1-1/8

inadmissible. However, during trial, Lodis proceeded to introduce broad