Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/723421.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
Full Text
1,798 charsCorbis Corporation supplies digital images and stock photography worldwide. Steven Lodis was hired in 2005 by then- chief-executive-officer (CEO) Steve Davis to serve as vice president of worldwide human resources (HR) for Corbis. In July 2007, 37 year old Gary Shenk replaced Davis as CEO. Davis expressed concerns to Shenk about Lodis's performance. Instead of terminating Lodis, Shenk appointed Lodis to his nine person executive management team. Lodis was 55 at the time of the promotion. He initially received positive performance reviews from Shenk. After becoming CEO, Shenk made many comments indicating his preference for younger workers. He talked about olderworkers being "out of touch," "an old-timer," "grandmotherly," or "the old guy on [the] team." Shenk also expressed interest to Lodis in hiring younger workers for his executive team. Lodis spoke with Shenk on several occasions about Shenk's age related comments. Lodis explained that there was a growing concern among Corbis employees about Shenk's comments. As the highest ranking HR officer at Corbis, Lodis reminded Shenkthat age should not be a factor in hiring or firing employees. Lodis explained later that he admonished Shenk, because he was "trying to protect [him]." In late 2007, Lodis expressed his concern about Shenk's comments to Corbis General Counsel Jim Mitchell. Around that same time, in late 2007 or possibly January 2008, Shenk promoted Lodis to senior vice president. Lodis also received a pay raise and incentive bonus at that time. In January 2008, Shenk organized executive team members and an independent consultant to conduct Lodis's annual performance review. The parties dispute the circumstances surrounding that performance review. Lodis alleges that Shenk specifically recruited Lodis detractors