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

1,744 chars

repeatedly provided unauthorized double discounts and had otherwise violated company policies

regarding discounts. Home Depot believed that Mackey had admitted to violating discount

policies in her interview with Weaver. Mackey was told that she was being terminated for

improperly applying discounts to sales.

Further, in her deposition Mackey admitted that fair reasons for termination would be (1)

improperly discounting sales, (2) giving a discount on the sale of an item without manger

approval, and (3) giving double discounts on sales. Home Depot’s investigation supported each

of those reasons.

Mackey argues that she presented sufficient evidence to establish a question of fact as to

pretext because the investigation’s findings were not true or accurate and therefore had no basis

in fact. She relies on the statements in her declaration that she did not violate discount policies.

However, regarding this step in the framework, whether Home Depot’s investigation was

completely accurate or whether its conclusion that Mackey had violated discount policies was

correct is not dispositive. The question is whether the alleged violations were the actual reason

for her termination. Home Depot’s action was based on actual evidence derived from the

investigation indicating that Mackey had violated store discount policies. The fact that Mackey

disagrees with Home Depot’s conclusions based on that evidence does not mean that those

conclusions were not the actual reason for her termination. See Chen v. State, 86 Wn. App. 183,

20
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52293-4-II

190-91, 937 P.2d 612 (1997). “An employee’s assertion of good performance to contradict the