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

1,642 chars

804 P.2d 1287(1991), rev'dby Wilmot, 118 Wn.2d at 79. Wilmot did not involve a
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Cornwell(Dawn) v. Microsoft Corp., No. 94846-1
(Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting)

mysterious prior claim that inspired "detective work," as this case does. Clerk's

Papers at 156. Moreover, Wilmot concluded that a plaintiff must show that at least

part of the employer's ''motivation for the discharge was the employee's exercise

of or intent to exercise the statutory rights." 118 Wn.2d at 68-69(emphasis added);

see also id. at 67 (requiring a showing of the employer's "'motivat[ion]'"(quoting

Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219, 232, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984))).

Here, contrary to the WLAD and contrary to Wilmot, the majority discards the

requirement that knowledge or suspicion of IfX^D-protected activity was a

substantial factor in the adverse employment action. Once again, the majority's

analysis is over-inclusive.

But the majority's approach is also under-inclusive in a different

respect. There is no doubt that the history ofgender discrimination in the workplace

is basically a history of gender discrimination against women. See generally Cal.

Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 286, 107 S. Ct. 683,93 L. Ed. 2d

613(1987)(purpose of antidiscrimination legislation at issue was to "provide relief

for working women and to end discrimination against pregnant workers"); Muller

V. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 28 S. Ct. 324, 52 L. Ed. 551 (1908) (detailing and

justifying history of limitations on women in the workplace). But there is also no