Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049631-3-II%20Published%20Order.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

1,542 chars

App. 131, 147, 265 P.3d 971 (2011).

“The employee shows pretext if the proffered justifications have no basis in fact, are

unreasonable grounds upon which to base the termination, or were not motivating factors in

16
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
49631-3-II

employment decisions for other similarly-situated employees.” Griffith v. Schnitzer Steel Indus.,

Inc., 128 Wn. App. 438, 447, 115 P.3d 1065 (2005). “An employee may satisfy the pretext prong

by offering sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact either (1) that the

defendant’s reason is pretextual or (2) that although the employer’s stated reason is legitimate,

discrimination nevertheless was a substantial factor motivating the employer.” Scrivener v. Clark

Coll., 181 Wn.2d 439, 446-47, 334 P.3d 541 (2014). An employee need not produce direct

evidence to show pretext; circumstantial and inferential evidence can be sufficient. Griffith, 128

Wn. App. at 447. “An employer may be motivated by multiple purposes, both legitimate and

illegitimate, when making employment decisions and still be liable under the WLAD.” Scrivener,

181 Wn.2d at 447. But an employee’s speculation or subjective belief on her performance is

irrelevant. Griffith, 128 Wn. App. at 447.

We consider whether the issues in the arbitration were identical to those in a WLAD claim

based on the burden-shifting framework in McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. 792. The court

in Dumont v. City of Seattle, summarized the test: