involved in the performance rating process recalled being "very surprised as to how
[Cornwell] was evaluated" and that "several of the managers in the discussion
supported [Cornwell] as being a good performer, undeserving of a '5' rating definition."
CP at 212. Even Blake acknowledged that "in general Dawn received feedback that
she's a good team player. People found her personality to be enjoyable, and she
brought a positive and upbeat experience to teams." CP at 56.
Despite these disagreements, McKinley said that she and Blake would "take
the conversation 'off-line,'" meaning that Blake and McKinley would make the final
decision about Cornwell's performance rating without the involvement of the other
managers. CP at 212. Cornwell's final performance rating was assessed as a "5"—
the lowest possible score. Human resources told Blake to not inform Cornwell of her
review score "unless she asked about it." CP at 63. Cornwell was then laid off as part
of a larger reduction in force. Cornwell remembers being told that she would not
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp.
No. 94846-1
receive a review score rating because of the layoff. As a result, Cornwell did not learn
about her low score until several years later when she was told that she could not be
rehired at Microsoft because her final performance rating was so poor.^
II. Procedural History
Based on these events, Cornwell filed suit against Microsoft, alleging retaliation
in violation of WLAD. Microsoft moved for summary judgment, arguing that Cornwell
had failed to present evidence showing a prima facie case of discrimination. The trial
court granted Microsoft's motion for summary judgment because the judge believed