Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 948461.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,749 chars
concludes that an agent is acting explicitly or implicit[ly] upon the orders of a superior who
has the requisite knowledge." Gordon v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111, 117 (2d Cir.
2000). While the standard may be useful in situations where many individuals act collectively
in a large company, it is not applicable here where CornweH's two supervisors had actual
knowledge of her prior lawsuit. Thus, we decline to address the "general corporate
knowledge" standard in this case.
^ See a/so MIchkowskI v. Snohomlsh County, No. 71328-1-1, slip op. at 14 (Wash. Ct. App.
Feb. 17, 2015)(unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/713281.pdf ("Without
evidence of actual knowledge, [an employee] fails to establish the causal connection
necessary to make out a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge."); Stephens v. Erickson,
569 F.3d 779, 788 (7th Cir. 2009)("Clearly, a superior cannot retaliate against an employee
for a protected activity about which he has no knowledge."); Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star
Borough Sch. DIst., 323 F.3d 1185, 1197 (9th Cir. 2003)("In addition, the plaintiff must make
some showing sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to infer that the defendant was aware
that the plaintiff had engaged in protected activity.").

10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp.
No. 94846-1

intentional act, an employer cannot retaliate against an employee for an action of

which the employer is unaware. Marin, 194 Wn. App. at 818("WI_AD does not prohibit

an employer's actions without evidence of a causal link between the action and a

plaintiffs protected activity.").

Microsoft argues that Blake and McKinley did not have actual knowledge of