Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,787 chars

to harassment and discrimination at Symetra. Lastly, when Bittner suspected that

Symetra’s executives were managing out Jaggers due to his age to get “younger

members on the team,” Bittner warned Jaggers that he should seek legal advice

because “if something happens to me, I hope you know your rights.” Bittner also

sent an e-mail to his superiors voicing his opposition to their directive to manage

out Jaggers in which he stated, “I just don’t think it is right and would need to

navigate properly to avoid any view of discrimination against myself or [Jaggers].”

On this record, both the opposition clause and the participation clause are

applicable. Bittner’s conduct can be viewed as opposition to discrimination

because he confronted discrimination against Rotz, Doe, and Jaggers and offered

resistance to it. See Lodis, 172 Wn. App. at 848 (noting that “oppose,” which is

not defined in the WLAD, means “‘to confront with . . . objections’ and ‘to offer

resistance to, contend against, or forcefully withstand.’” (quoting W EBSTER’S THIRD

NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1583 (2002)). Bittner reported to HR his concerns

about Rotz, Doe, and Jaggers being discriminated against, and he told his

superiors that he opposed age discrimination against Jaggers shortly before he

was initially terminated. Additionally, Bittner’s conduct can be viewed as having

assisted in a WLAD proceeding because he was encouraging employees to initiate

- 13 -
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I

legal action against Symetra, which Rotz and Doe ultimately did. 8 Viewing this

evidence in the light most favorable to Bittner, we conclude he has established fact

issues regarding the first element of his retaliation claims.