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

the evidence in a light most favorable to Alonso, we hold that Alonso presented sufficient

evidence to establish a prima facie hostile work environment case.

12
             

No. 43703 -1 - II

To establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim, the plaintiff must allege facts

was unwelcome, ( 2) the harassment was because the plaintiff
proving that ( 1) the harassment

was a member of a protected class, ( 3) the harassment affected the terms and conditions of

employment, and ( 4) the harassment is imputable to the employer. Loeffelholz v. Univ. of Wash.,

175 Wn.2d 264, 275, 285 P. 3d 854 ( 2012). Harassment is only actionable if it is sufficiently

pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working

environment. Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d 256, 261, 103 P. 3d 729 ( 2004).

A. Harassment Motivated by Alonso' s Protected Status

The parties do not dispute that Alonso did not welcome any hostility or harassment.

Therefore, we next analyze whether Alonso' s protected status motivated the harassment.

To establish the second element of a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff need

only produce " evidence that supports a reasonable inference that [ his protected class status] was

the motivating factor for the harassing conduct." Doe v. Dep' t of Transp., 85 Wn. App. 143,

149, 931 P. 2d 196, review denied, 132 Wn.2d 1012 ( 1997). Here, Martinez openly expressed

that he hated that Alonso was a disabled Gulf War combat veteran. Martinez even compared his

own veteran status with Alonso' s, noting, " I served and I got crap." Suppl. CP at 233. This

evidence, alone, supports a reasonable inference that Martinez' s hatred for Alonso as a disabled