Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf

adverse.33 Here, Marin presented no such context for his claims.

Second, Marin failed to show that his protected activity caused or was a

"substantial factor" in the County taking any of the alleged adverse employment

actions. He again compares his case to Boyd, where Division Two found a

triable issue as to causation, but we again distinguish that case.34 After Boyd

told his supervisor to stop harassing him, "she became hostile and threatened to

'make sure [he] can't work in any of the 50 states.'"35 She then "involved herself

32 Boyd, 187 Wn. App. at 14.
33 Boyd, 187 Wn. App. at 14.
34 Boyd, 187 Wn. App. at 14.
35 Boyd, 187 Wn. App. at 18 (alteration in original).
-16-
             

No. 72666-8-1/17

in investigating" a complaint that had been made against Boyd, collecting witness

statements and interviews, and writing that Boyd "is known to lie."36 Their

employer relied on her statements to discipline Boyd.37 Here, Marin points to

Sagnis's statements to an HR person showing "retaliatory animus." But unlike

the supervisor in Boyd, Sagnis had no involvement with Marin after Marin made

his complaint. Sagnis made the statements months after Marin left his crew, and

Marin acknowledges he did not know of the statements when he decided to

remain at South Plant. Because Marin cannot connect Sagnis's animus with any

alleged action against him, he cannot use it to show causation.

Third, Marin failed to show that anyone at South Plant knew about his

protected activity at West Point, precluding his claim that employees at South

Plant retaliated for that activity. He identifies no evidence that supports his bare

assertion that the entire "chain of command" knew he complained against

Sagnis.