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
1,775 charsemployee] as 'the old man on the team.'" Shenk denied ever referring to the
No. 72342-1-1/5
employee in that manner or ever being admonished by Lodis for doing so.
Lodis next testified that in the spring or summer of 2007, he admonished
Shenk for a second time after Shenk referred to his new executive team as a
"young team,"3 which was brought to Lodis's attention by Corbis's then-human
resources manager. Lodis also testified that he again admonished Shenk in
August or September 2007 for referring to his executive team as a "young team,"
after Lodis (he claimed) discussed the issue with Corbis's then-CFO. Further,
Shenk admitted that he referred to his executive team in that manner but stated
that it had nothing to do with age and, rather, was meant "to express the passion,
energy, and newness, the new thinking that those team members brought to the
table." Further, Shenk denied that Lodis had ever discussed this issue with him.
Lodis further testified that, in approximately November 2007, he
admonished Shenk for a fourth time after Shenk referred to a Corbis employee—
who had been identified for possible termination as part of a reduction in force-
as "old." Shenk denied ever referring to the employee in that manner and denied
that Lodis had ever discussed this issue with him.
Finally, Lodis testified that, in late November or early December 2007, he
admonished Shenk for a fifth time after Shenk expressed that he wished to
replace the then-senior vice president of Corbis's "Green Light Division" with a
"young Hollywood type." Shenk denied that he sought to replace the employee
with a "young Hollywood type," although he acknowledged that he considered an