Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf

record before the trial court at summary judgment. Boguch v. Landover Corp.,
153 Wn. App. 595, 608, 224 P.3d 795 (2009).
13 Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 179 Wn.2d 684, 693, 317
P.3d 987 (2014); Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 216, 226, 770 P.2d 182
(1989).
14 CR 56(c); Camicia, 179 Wn.2d at 693.
15 See Grimwood v. Univ. of Puget Sound, Inc., 110 Wn.2d 355, 362-63,
753 P.2d 517 (1988). Both Marin and the County primarily address the elements
that follow.
16 Burlington Indus.. Inc. v. Ellerth. 524 U.S. 742, 761, 118 S. Ct. 2257,
141 L.Ed. 2d 633 (1998).
17 Anica v. Wal-Mart Stores. Inc.. 120 Wn. App. 481, 488, 84 P.3d 1231
(2004).
-11-
             

No. 72666-8-1/12

prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the County to show legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its adverse employment action.18 If the County

produces this evidence, the burden returns to Marin to show that the County's

reasons are pretextual. This means they "(1) have no basis in fact, (2) were not

really motivating factors for the decision, or (3) were not motivating factors in

employment decisions for other employees in the same circumstances."19

Marin failed to make the reguired prima facie showing. First, he did not

present evidence of an adverse employment action. None of the actions he

points to, many of which he misrepresents, amount to a tangible change in

employment status.20 He alleges a general pattern of harassment but does not

support it with citations to the record adequate for this court to review.21

The record does not, in any case, support Marin's assertions. The TLC

Marin received on B Crew was not an adverse employment action. It did not