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

1,741 chars

Eve Clinic. P.S.. 114 Wn. App. 611, 619, 60 P.3d 106 (2002) (alteration in

original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Graves v. Dep't of Game. 76

Wn. App. 705, 712, 887 P.2d 424 (1994)); accord Lodis, 172 Wn. App. at 852

("An employee need only show he had an objectively reasonable belief that his

employer violated the law, not that the employer did in fact violate the law." (citing

Ellis v. City of Seattle. 142 Wn.2d 450, 460-61, 13 P.3d 1065 (2000))).

As a preliminary matter, contrary to Lodis's assertion, he was not

"precluded" from presenting evidence of his reasonable beliefthat he was

opposing discriminatory conduct. The record herein demonstrates that, in fact,
Lodis was permitted to present evidence concerning every one of the five

instances of allegedly discriminatory conduct that he claimed to have openly

opposed.

Notwithstanding that the trial court's ruling permitted him to present

significant evidence of allegedly discriminatory conduct by Shenk, Lodis

contends that the trial court erred by prohibiting him from presenting evidence of

each instance of allegedly discriminatory conduct of which he was aware.

Lodis's contention overlooks the trial court's discretion to exclude minimally

11 A retaliatory motive need not be the employer's sole or principal reason for the
discharge so long as the employee establishes that retaliation was a substantial factor. Wilmot v.
Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp.. 118 Wn.2d 46, 68-69, 821 P.2d 18 (1991 ^: Kahn v. Salerno. 90
Wn. App. 110, 128-29, 951 P.2d 321 (1998).

-15-

No. 72342-1-1/16

relevant and highly prejudicial evidence. Indeed, the relevance of this evidence