Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/726668.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,395 chars

against him for protected activity.12 We review a grant of summary judgment de

11 In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cohen, 150 Wn.2d 744, 760 n.8,
761-62, 82 P.3d 224 (2004).
12 Marin repeatedly cites to the trial transcript to support his contentions
that summary judgment was inappropriate. This court restricts its review to the
-10-
             

No. 72666-8-1 /11

novo, considering the same record as the trial court in the light most favorable to

the nonmoving party.13 Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact.14

Disparate Treatment Based on Protected Status

The elements of a prima facie case for disparate treatment based on

protected status are not absolute but vary based on the relevant facts.15 The

parties agree that Marin is a member of one or more protected classes. Marin

must also show that he suffered a tangible adverse employment action. This

means "a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to

promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision

causing a significant change in benefits."16 He must also show that the action

occurred under circumstances that raise a reasonable inference of unlawful

discrimination and that he was doing satisfactory work.17 If Marin makes this