Cornwell's suit because they did not know the specific nature of the lawsuit—i.e., that
it involved an allegation of discrimination in violation of WLAD. CP at 55, 144.
However, Microsoft's focus on the managers' knowledge about the substance of the
suit is misplaced. A decision-maker need not have actual knowledge about the legal
significance of a protected action. Instead, the decision-maker need have actual
knowledge only that the employee took the action in order to prove a causal
connection. ROW 49.60.210(1) ("It is an unfair practice for any employer . . . to
discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has
opposed any practices forbidden by [WLAD]."); see aiso Wilmot, 118 Wn.2d at 69
(stating that an employee could prove causation by showing three facts, including
"that the employer had knowledge of the [action]"). "The proper inquiry is whether the
. . . evidence suggests a causai connection between the protected activity and the
subsequent adverse action sufficient to defeat summary judgment." Reich v. Hoy
Shoe Co., 32 F.3d 361, 367 (8th Cir. 1994). Cornwell has presented sufficient
evidence that Blake and McKinley knew Cornwell took prior legal action against
Microsoft.
11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp.
No. 94846-1
Here, Blake and McKinley actually knew about Cornwell's alleged protected
activity—the lawsuit. Regardless of whether they understood that the lawsuit was
protected activity under WLAD because of its substance, they still had knowledge that
the activity took place. It is undisputed that Blake and McKinley knew that Cornwell
had filed a lawsuit against Microsoft and her former supervisor. Blake learned that