Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf

To show retaliation based on protected activity, a plaintiff must provide

evidence that the individuals he alleges retaliated against him knew of his

protected activity.58 The WLAD does not prohibit an employer's actions without

evidence of a causal link between the action and a plaintiff's protected activity.59

The trial court dismissed Marin's claim of retaliation-based hostile work

environment because it determined that Marin presented no evidence that

anyone harassed him after knowing about his protected activity. The record

supports that finding: Marin did not work with Sagnis after complaining against

56 See Johnston-Forbes v. Matsunaga, 181 Wn.2d 346, 356, 333 P.3d 388
(2014).
57 Guiiosa v. Wal-Mart Stores. Inc.. 144 Wn.2d 907, 915, 32 P.3d 250
(2001) (guoting Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc.. 134 Wn.2d 24, 29, 948 P.2d 816
(1997)).
58 See Currier. 182 Wn. App. at 746-47.
59 Alonso v. Qwest Commc'ns Co.. 178 Wn. App. 734, 753-54, 315 P.3d
610(2013).
-24-
             

No. 72666-8-1 / 25

him, so Sagnis's later comments were not retaliatory. No one at South Plant

knew of Marin's complaint against Sagnis or any other protected activity, so

whatever conduct Marin experienced at South Plant could not have been

retaliation for that complaint. And after Marin then complained about Alenduff,

the County respected his request to remain anonymous. Marin presented no

evidence of any conduct by a managing employee who was aware of Marin's

complaints that a reasonable juror could find to be harassment. Instead, he

alleges, "HR terrified [him] . . . that he would return to Sagnis's" crew "and that

he was 'welcome to go back to West Point D Crew.'" He bases these allegations