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

1,784 chars

that although the employer’s stated reason is legitimate, discrimination nevertheless was a

substantial factor motivating the employer.’ ” Id. (quoting Scrivener, 181 Wn.2d at 446-47).

The employee is not required to show that discrimination was the only motivating factor for the

discharge because an employer’s decision may be based on both legitimate and illegitimate

reasons. Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 534.

Summary judgment for an employer is rarely appropriate in a discriminatory discharge

case “because of the difficulty of proving discriminatory motivation.” Id. at 527. “ ‘When the

record contains reasonable but competing inferences of both discrimination and

nondiscrimination, the trier of fact must determine the true motivation.’ ” Id. at 528 (quoting

Scrivener, 181 Wn.2d at 445). To avoid summary judgment, the employee must “show only that

a reasonable jury could find that discrimination was a substantial factor in the employer’s

adverse employment action.” Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 528.

10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52293-4-II

Here, Mackey has no direct evidence that Home Depot terminated her because of her

disability, as retaliation, or in violation of public policy. Therefore, the McDonnell Douglas

burden-shifting framework applies. See Scrivener, 181 Wn.2d at 445.

3. Prima Facie Case – Discriminatory Discharge

To make a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, an employee must show that he

or she was (1) within a statutorily protected class, (2) discharged by the defendant, and (3) doing

satisfactory work. Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 527. Here, the parties do not dispute that Mackey

suffered from mental and physical disabilities of which Home Depot was aware or that she was