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

Full Text

1,392 chars

evidence. . . . He has produced sufficient evidence which, if credited by the jury, would

satisfy [the] burden of establishing a prima facie case." Id. at 1113-14. So long as an

employee produces evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that retaliation

had taken place, this is sufficient to survive summary judgment, /c/. at 1114. And while,

a jury could believe the supervisor's version of events rather than the employee's, the

jury must be permitted to consider and weigh evidence. Id.

Here, Cornwell had to prove that Microsoft knew or suspected that she had

taken a prior iegal action. As previously discussed, Cornwell produced sufficient

evidence showing that both Blake and McKinley had actual knowledge that Cornwell

had filed a previous lawsuit against Microsoft. Thus, Cornwell easily meets the "knew

or suspected" standard to survive summary judgment on her retaliation claim.

15
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp.
No. 94846-1

Although Cornwell satisfies the "knew or suspected" standard, the broader

question remains of whether we should adopt this standard. We adopt the standard
because it furthers WLAD's purpose to protect employees from retaliation.

The purpose behind the "knew or suspected" test is to protect employees from

retaliation to the fullest extent possible: