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
1,626 chars' Like the majority, I use the parties' terminology. See majority at 2 n.1. 2 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp., No. 94846-1 (Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting) claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or defamation. Besides common law torts, such a lawsuit could allege any number of statutory retaliation claims that do not implicate the WLAD. For example, a male supervisor could give a female employee a poor review score because she submitted a safety complaint, in violation of RCW 49.17.160. Or a male supervisor might give a female employee a poor review score because she told her coworkers that she thinks they should form a union, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). A male supervisor could give a female employee a poor review score because he thought that she was insufficiently committed to the company after she spent two weeks serving on a jury trial—in violation of RCW 2.36.165(2). As yet another example, a male supervisor might give a female employee a poor review score because she blew the whistle under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, an 18 U.S.C. § 1514A violation. Or a male supervisor could give a female employee a poor review score because she refused to disclose her login information to her personal social networking account, access her personal social networking account in the supervisor's presence, add a contact of the supervisor's selection to her personal social networking account, or alter the view settings of her personal social