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

the superior court erred in granting Qwest' s summary judgment motion on this issue.

III. RETALIATION

Finally, Alonso contends that Martinez unlawfully retaliated against him because ( 1)

Alonso engaged in statutorily protected activity by reporting discrimination to the Qwest hotline;

2) Qwest engaged in conduct tending to deter discrimination victims from coming forward, an

adverse employment action; and ( 3) the close temporal proximity between Alonso' s complaint

and further mistreatment demonstrates causation. Here, Alonso failed to sufficiently establish a

prima facie retaliation case because he did not demonstrate that he phoned the hotline to report

14
discrimination based on his protected statuses. Therefore, the trial court did not err in

dismissing his retaliation claim.

14
Instead, Alonso called to complain about corruption, " vulgar conversation," and mistreatment
in the form of heightened scrutiny and being singled out, without connecting these actions to a
protected status. CP at 81.

17
             

No. 43703 -1 - II

The WLAD prohibits retaliation against a party asserting a claim based on a perceived

violation of his civil rights or participating in an investigation into alleged workplace

discrimination. RCW 49. 60. 210. To establish a prima facie retaliation case, a plaintiff must

show that ( 1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity, ( 2) his employer took an adverse

employment action against him, and ( 3) there is a causal link between the activity and the

adverse action. Short v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 169 Wn. App. 188, 205, 279 P. 3d 902 ( 2012).

We must first determine whether Alonso produced sufficient evidence that he engaged in