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

1,521 chars

I wanted to address a number of pending motions. The first is
[Lodis's] motion for judgment as a matter of law on defendants'
after-acquired evidence defense.
And the issue that is being argued is whether or not there is
any actual employment practice of terminating employees for not
recording vacation.
[Lodis's counsel] argues that in the absence of any evidence
of that, there can be no after-acquired evidence defense; it can't be
based on a statement that "I would have terminated somebody."
The problem that I have with that argument is that even if
there has not been a termination based on this kind of conduct, the
question is: Has there ever been this kind of conduct in the past
that would warrant termination?
I know that there are disputes between the parties as to what
the practice has been and whether or not other employees have
failed to record vacation. As I understand Corbis's argument, there
is a difference between not recording an insignificant number of
days, however one wants to define that, and this situation.
Ithink that question really needs to be decided by the jury.
So based on the reasons that I have already given previously, I will
allow the after-acquired evidence to go to the jury.[9]
6. The Third Jury Rules in Corbis's Favor, Rejecting Lodis's Retaliation
Claim; The Trial Court Denies Lodis's Motion ForA New Trial.

Following an eight-day trial, the third jury returned a verdict in Corbis's

favor, finding that Corbis had not engaged in retaliation. Lodis filed a motion for