Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/948461.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
Full Text
1,743 charsstep in this case—the plaintiff's burden to establish a prima facie case of
discrimination. Scrivener, 181 Wn.2d at 446.'"Ordinarily the prima facie case must, in
the nature of things, be shown by circumstantial evidence, since the employer is not
apt to announce retaliation as his motive.'" Wllmot v. Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Corp.,
118 Wn.2d 46, 69, 821 P.2d 18 (1991)(quoting 1 Lex K. Larson, Unjust Dismissal
§ 6.05[5], at 6-51 (1988)); see also Currier v. Northland Servs., Inc., 182 Wn. App.
733, 746-47, 332 P.3d 1006 (2014)('"Because employers rarely will reveal they are
motivated by retaliation, plaintiffs ordinarily must resort to circumstantial evidence to
demonstrate retaliatory purpose.'"(internal quotation marks omitted)(quoting Estevez
V. Faculty Club of Univ. of Wash., 129 Wn. App. 774, 799, 120 P.3d 579 (2005))).
3 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 8. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973).
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp.
No. 94846-1
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee must show three
things:(1)the employee took a statutorily protected action,(2)the employee suffered
an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link between the employee's
protected activity and the adverse employment action. Currier, 182 Wn. App. at 742;
see also Wilmot, 118 Wn.2d at 68 (establishing the retaliation test in the worker's
compensation context).
Here, Microsoft alleges that Cornwell has failed to produce sufficient evidence
for the first and third elements of her prima facie case.'' Because the Court of Appeals
declined to address whether Cornwell's lawsuit against Microsoft was a protected