Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2052293-4-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,794 chars

DIVISION II
LORI MACKEY, No. 52293-4-II

Appellant,
PUBLISHED OPINION
v.

HOME DEPOT USA, INC. dba THE HOME
DEPOT STORE #4718, JAMIE KRALL, and
JENNIFER ISLES,

Respondents.

MAXA, C.J. – Lori Mackey appeals the trial court’s dismissal on summary judgment of a

lawsuit she filed against her former employer, Home Depot, and two Home Depot managers,

Jamie Krall and Jennifer Isles (collectively, Home Depot). Home Depot terminated Mackey’s

employment after an investigation determined that she had been violating company policies

regarding discounts on customer orders. Mackey denied violating the discount policies, and she

claimed that the reason for the investigation and her termination was her complaint to the store

manager shortly before her termination that Krall had verbally attacked her because of her

disabilities. Mackey asserted claims for discriminatory discharge, retaliation for opposing an

unlawful practice, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and failure to reasonably

accommodate her physical disability.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52293-4-II

We hold that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on Mackey’s

discriminatory discharge, retaliation, and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claims

because although she made a prima facie case for those claims, Home Depot presented evidence

of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for her termination and Mackey failed to establish a

genuine issue of fact that her complaint about Krall’s conduct also was a motivating factor for

her termination. In addition, we hold that the trial court did not err in granting summary

judgment on Mackey’s failure to reasonably accommodate claim because Mackey never notified