Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 56466-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

further proceedings regarding this prong of wrongful termination in violation of public policy, we

need not address Paddock’s argument that he was discharged in violation of public policy for

exercising a legal right.

II. IMPROPERLY RAISED ARGUMENTS

A. Retaliation

Paddock argues that the Port terminated his employment in retaliation for the grievances

he filed. In his reply brief, he contends that there “is ample evidence of retaliation on the part of

the Port, which . . . leads to the claim of wrongful discharge . . . akin to a retaliatory dismissal

under” the Law Against Discrimination. Appellant’s Reply Br. at 21. We decline to address this

argument because it is unsupported by pertinent authority.

17
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

An appellant must provide “argument in support of the issues presented for review,

together with citations to legal authority and references to relevant parts of the record.” RAP

10.3(a)(6). “Appellate courts need not consider arguments that are unsupported by pertinent

authority, references to the record, or meaningful analysis.” Cook v. Brateng, 158 Wn. App. 777,

794, 262 P.3d 1228 (2010).

Here, Paddock does not specifically identify a valid legal basis for his retaliation claim.

Paddock points to the Law Against Discrimination, which makes it “an unfair practice for” an

employer to discharge a person for opposing “any practices forbidden by” that statute or to

discharge a person for filing a charge, testifying, or assisting “in any proceeding under” that statute.

RCW 49.60.210(1). The law also makes it “an unfair practice for any employer . . . to discharge .