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
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
Full Text
1,714 charspractices of discrimination against any of [Washington’s] inhabitants because of . . . any sensory, mental, or physical disability . . . are a matter of state concern, . . . [and] such discrimination threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of [Washington] inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state. (Emphasis added). Further, as noted above, complaining about discriminatory conduct is statutorily protected activity. RCW 49.60.210; see Estevez, 129 Wn. App. at 799. Therefore, we conclude that discharge may have been motivated by reasons that contravene a clear mandate of public policy. c. Significant Factor Next, Mackey must show that her complaint about Krall was a significant factor in Home Depot’s decision to terminate her. Martin, 191 Wn.2d at 725. To do so, she must produce direct 17 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 52293-4-II or circumstantial evidence that the public-policy-linked conduct was a cause of her termination. Id. Mackey once again argues that the short time frame between her complaint to Tilton about her incident with Krall and her termination created a causal link between the two events. As discussed above, to show a prima facie case of retaliation an employee can satisfy his or her burden of showing that retaliation was a substantial factor in a termination based on the proximity in time between the employee’s protected activity and the termination. See Cornwall, 192 Wn.2d at 415-16. We apply the same rule for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claims. Here, Mackey’s termination occurred just 12 days after she complained to Tilton about