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

1,728 chars

Despite Home Depot’s evidence that Mackey’s work was not satisfactory because she

violated company discount policies, for a summary judgment motion Mackey’s declaration must

be taken as true. See Keck, 184 Wn.2d at 368. Mackey expressly denied that she violated any

Home Depot policies, gave unauthorized volume discounts, or gave double discounts. She

essentially claimed that the findings of Home Depot’s investigation were wrong.

Weaver stated in his report of his interview with Mackey that Mackey admitted to

violating discount policies. But Weaver’s account arguably is inconsistent with Mackey’s

declaration, and Mackey’s declaration must be taken as true.

Mackey submitted evidence that her work was satisfactory. Therefore, we conclude that

for purposes of summary judgment, Mackey established a prima facie case of discriminatory

discharge.

4. Prima Facie Case – Retaliation

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee must show that (1) he or she

engaged in a statutorily protected activity, (2) the employer took an adverse employment action

12
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52293-4-II

against the employee, and (3) there is a causal connection between the employee’s activity and

the employer’s adverse action. Cornwell, 192 Wn.2d at 411.

Here, the parties dispute whether Mackey engaged in a statutorily protected activity and

whether there was a causal connection between her complaint and her termination.

a. Statutorily Protected Activity

Mackey stated in her declaration that she complained to Tilton about Krall’s behavior the

day after it happened. She argues that this was a complaint that she was being discriminated