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

statutorily protected activity that led to the retaliation.

An employee engages in WLAD -protected activity when he opposes employment

practices forbidden by antidiscrimination law or other practices that he reasonably believed to be

discriminatory. Short, 169 Wn. App. at 205. A general complaint about an employer' s unfair

conduct does not rise to the level of protected activity in a discrimination action under WLAD

absent some reference to the plaintiff's protected status. See Graves v. Dep' t of Game, 76 Wn.

App. 705, 712, 887 P. 2d 424 ( 1994) ( affirming lower court' s grant of summary judgment on the

plaintiff s retaliation claim because the complaints " were not of sexual discrimination ").

Here, Alonso argues that he called the Qwest hotline to complain of discriminatory

activity motivated by his statutorily protected statuses. But according to the record, Alonso

called the hotline to report Martinez and Zuniga for corruption, mistreatment, and vulgar

language. Alonso did not express to the hotline that these complaints were in response to

harassment based on any protected status. 15

is Qwest' s redacted hotline reports do not indicate that Alonso claimed he was being
discriminated against on account of his religious beliefs and values.

18
             

No. 43703 -1 - II

Because Alonso did not phone the hotline to report discrimination against him based on

any protected status, he did not establish a prima facie case under WLAD, and we need not

consider the remaining elements of a prima facie retaliation claim. Accordingly, we hold that the

superior court did not err in dismissing Alonso' s retaliation claim.