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

1,791 chars

14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52293-4-II

resources manager. Home Depot emphasizes that Mackey presented no evidence that Beaubian

knew or suspected that she had complained about Krall’s behavior.

However, the summary judgment record does not establish that Beaubian and not Tilton

was the person who decided to terminate Mackey. Home Depot cites only to one ambiguous

portion of Mackey’s deposition for this proposition, which viewed in a light most favorable to

Mackey does not establish that Beaubian was the decision-maker. And Home Depot did not

submit any direct evidence that Beaubian was the decision-maker.

Further, Tilton communicated to Mackey that she was being terminated, and he prepared

the termination notice. And he was the store manager. In the absence of any evidence that some

other person made the termination decision, this evidence creates a reasonable inference that

Tilton was at least one of the decision-makers.

ii. Substantial Factor

For purposes of the employee’s burden of showing a prima facie case, an employee can

satisfy his or her burden of showing that retaliation was a substantial factor in a termination

based on the employer’s knowledge of the protected activity and the proximity in time between

that activity and the termination. See Cornwell, 192 Wn.2d at 415-16. If the employer knows of

the protected activity and the termination follows “shortly thereafter, it is a reasonable inference

that these actions were in retaliation” for the activity. Id. at 416. Causation “ ‘may be inferred

from proximity in time between the protected action and the allegedly retaliatory employment

decision.’ ” Id. (quoting Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1197