one form of circumstantial evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination,
and it may be quite persuasive."35 Here, the trial court found a lack of
documentation for NSI's purported nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating
Currier's contract. The court also found inconsistencies in Sleeth's and
Franssen's explanations of those reasons and in their accounts of the events
surrounding Currier's complaint. The court found a close proximity in time
between the complaint and the termination. The court did "not find credible the
claim that Plaintiff's [cjomplaint had no effect on the decision to terminate
Plaintiff's contract." Substantial evidence supports the court's conclusion that
Currier's complaint "tipped the scales toward termination."
35 Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147, 120 S.
Ct. 2097, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105 (2000).
-14-
NO. 70128-2-1/15
NSI argues that the trial court's decision "would effectively hold an
employer liable for all discriminatory statements of all of its independent
contractors or sales and supply vendors that happen to be on the employer's
property."36 But this argument begins with a faulty premise—that NSI is being
held liable for Billy Howell's racially discriminatory speech. This completely
misrepresents the basis for liability. The trial court held NSI liable for its own
retaliatory conduct against an independent contractor after he complained to NSI.
The trial court's decision does not make the law "a general civility code" beyond
the original intent of the legislature;37 it holds NSI accountable for the exact type
of retaliatory conduct the legislature sought to prevent with RCW 49.60.210(1).