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

1,785 chars

Krall’s behavior. This proximity in time between the complaint and the termination is sufficient

to create a reasonable inference that, for purposes of showing a prima facie case, Mackey’s

complaint was a significant factor in the decision to terminate Mackey. Therefore, we conclude

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

discharge in violation of public policy.

6. Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reason for Termination

In the second step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, once the employee makes a

prima facie case the burden shifts to the employer, who must articulate a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for the discharge. Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 527. We conclude that

Home Depot met this burden on all of Mackey’s claims.

Home Depot presented evidence that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

terminating Mackey: her violation of company discount policies. Home Depot concluded that

Mackey had given an estimated $17,000 in unauthorized discounts.

18
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52293-4-II

Mackey argues that the trial court failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable

to her when it found that Home Depot had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating

her without considering her explanation of how her conduct was in compliance with discounting

policies. However, for this stage in the McDonnell Douglas framework, the employer only has a

burden of production, not persuasion, and does not need not persuade the court that it was

actually motivated by the nondiscriminatory reasons. Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 533. The

employer need only introduce “ ‘evidence which, taken as true, would permit the conclusion that