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

Full Text

1,725 chars

The WLAD [Washington Law Against Discrimination]
protects employees engaged in statutorily protected activity from
retaliation by their employer. See RCW 49.60.210. It provides:

It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment
agency, labor union, or other person to discharge,
expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person
because he or she has opposed any practices
forbidden by this chapter, or because he or she has
filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding
under this chapter.

RCW 49.60.210(1) (emphasis added).

Lodis, 172 Wn. App. at 847-48. The so-called "opposition clause," which

provides protection when an employee opposes forbidden practices, is at issue

here.

"To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the WLAD, the

employee must show that (1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) the

employer took some adverse employment action against the employee; and (3)

10 Lodis's briefing on this issue also argues that neither the doctrine of collateral estoppel
nor the lawof the case doctrine provides a basis for the challenged trial court ruling. Because the
trial court did not rely on either doctrine in rendering its decision, and Corbis does not contend on
appeal that either doctrine applies, we do not further address these arguments.

-14-

No. 72342-1-1/15

there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action."11

Lodis. 172 Wn. App. at 846. "'[A]n employee who opposes employment

practices reasonably believed to be discriminatory is protected by the "opposition

clause" whether or not the practice is actually discriminatory.'" Renz v. Spokane