Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,732 chars
we would conclude that he has shown pretext. To show pretext, Bittner must produce “sufficient
evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact either (1) that the employer’s articulated reason
for its action is pretextual or (2) that although the employer’s stated reason is legitimate,
discrimination nevertheless was a substantial factor motivating the employer.” Scrivener, 181
Wn.2d at 441-42. Here, Ward e-mailed Fry about his “concern” that Bittner was offering “bad
advice” to “disgruntled” employees such as Doe to seek legal advice. Ward then instructed Fry to
tell Bittner that “[i]t’s not your place to tell any Symetra employee to seek legal advice, e.g. D. Rotz.”
Fry did so, and he later categorized this issue as an “area . . . where your performance as a sales
leader . . . needs to improve.” Costello and Fry effectively told Bittner that he “would be fired” if he
continued telling employees to seek legal advice. Immediately after these discussions with Bittner
in July 2018, his superiors began raising the critiques of his performance as an RVP that contributed
to Bittner being placed on a PIP in February 2019, initially terminated in October 2019, and
ultimately replaced in January 2020. Additionally, Bittner complained to his superiors about
perceived age discrimination against Jaggers just before he was initially terminated in October
2019. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Bittner, a reasonable juror could conclude
that Symetra’s legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for taking the adverse actions are pretextual or
that retaliation was a substantial factor motivating Symetra.

- 20 -
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I