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

1,448 chars

evidence’ of discriminatory intent.” But rather than explain why Bittner’s evidence

is not “direct,” Symetra merely points to the “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons

for any adverse actions [Bittner] alleges were taken.”9 This argument is

9 These reasons include performance issues such as failing to share metrics, attend meetings,

pursue business opportunities, engage in one-on-one meetings with sales representatives, and
help sales representatives develop new producer contracts and address performance issues.

- 19 -
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I

fundamentally flawed because it misstates the applicability of the McDonnell

Douglas framework. Because the record contains direct evidence of Symetra’s

retaliatory motive, Bittner does not need to show that Symetra’s proffered

legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its actions are pretextual to survive summary

judgment. See Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1191 (11th Cir. 1997)

(“Because we hold that [the employee] has presented sufficient direct evidence to

survive summary judgment, we do not address his McDonnell Douglas argument

and whether he has presented evidence of pretext.”). 10 The jury must determine

Symetra’s true motivation.

Next, Symetra asserts four distinct arguments that, it claims, disprove any

causal connection between Bittner’s protected activity and any adverse action.