Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43703-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

office. While both positions did the same work for the same pay and fell within the same union

contract classification, Martinez stated that the AQCB position came with " some benefits,"

including a newer van, cellular telephone, and preference in employer -supplied workstations,

computers, and desk telephones. CP at 47. In O' Neal v. City of Chicago, 392 F. 3d 909, 912 ( 7th

Cir. 2004), the Seventh Circuit held that the loss of a plaintiff' s cellular telephone, pager,

vehicle, and parking space did not amount to an adverse employment action when those benefits

were associated with the position from which the plaintiff was transferred. Thus, if Alonso' s

newer van, cellular phone, and preference for workplace stations were tied to his AQCB

position, under O' Neal, he could not prove an adverse action against him for loss of these

benefits when he was reassigned out of the AQCB back to the central office.

But, the parties dispute the role of the newer van and cellular telephone. Martinez states

that the newer van was for the AQCB employee because that employee interacted with

customers and should drive the nicer vehicle. Alonso, however, claims that he was assigned the

newer van "[ s] everal months" before he became an AQCB employee, dispelling the idea that he

was assigned the van only because of his AQCB capacity. Suppl. CP at 232. Also, the record

demonstrates that Qwest assigned a number of Qwest central office employees cellular phones,

not just AQCB employees. Because the record is conflicting regarding whether the newer van

and Qwest- issued cellular telephone were tied to the AQCB position, O' Neal is unavailing.

10
             

No. 43703 -1 - II