Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,744 chars

continuity between the persons who opposed Bittner’s protected activity and those

who subjected him to adverse actions.

Fourth, Symetra argues there is no causal connection between Bittner’s

opposition to age discrimination against Jaggers and any adverse action because

Bittner e-mailed his concerns about age discrimination to Costello on October 15,

2019, but Costello, Freestone, and Ward had already decided on October 10, 2019

to terminate Bittner’s employment. This argument is unconvincing because, even

assuming Symetra management planned to fire Bittner before he sent the e-mail,

they “pulled the term[ination] back” and did not fill Bittner’s position with another

employee until January 2020. Symetra’s position is internally contradictory; it

claims it already decided to terminate Bittner in October 2019, while also asserting

that it never terminated Bittner because he resigned in March 2020. By the time

- 22 -
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I

Bittner opposed age discrimination against Jaggers, Symetra knew he had

previously opposed discrimination against Doe and Rotz. See Wilmot v. Kaiser

Alum. & Chem. Corp., 118 Wn.2d 46, 69, 821 P.2d 18 (1991) (noting “[e]vidence

of an actual pattern of retaliatory conduct is, of course, very persuasive” evidence

of an employer’s improper motive) (quoting 1 L. Larson, § 6.05[5], at 6–51)). A

reasonable juror could conclude that Bittner’s opposition to age discrimination

against Jaggers was a substantial factor motivating the adverse actions.

In sum, Bittner has produced sufficient direct evidence that, when construed

in his favor, creates genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Symetra