Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/857088.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

996 chars

Notwithstanding the foregoing analysis, Symetra posits that Bittner’s

conduct was not protected activity because it “directly interfered with the

obligations Bittner owed to Symetra as an officer and senior manager.” But

interpreting the WLAD such that a high-level employee cannot oppose

discriminatory practices is antithetical to the act’s purpose of “deter[ring] and

eradicat[ing] discrimination in Washington—a public policy of the highest priority.”

See Lodis, 172 Wn. App. at 848. Indeed, we have previously acknowledged that

“HR, management, and legal employees” are “often the best situated to oppose an

employer’s discriminatory practices” and depriving them of protection from

retaliation “would create a disincentive for such employees to carry out their

ordinary job duties, which often includes ensuring company compliance with

employment and antidiscrimination laws.” Id. at 851.

8 Relatedly, federal courts have held that consulting with an attorney to remedy unlawful