Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf

18 Kirov v. City of Tacoma. 124 Wn. App. 454, 464, 98 P.3d 827 (2004).
19 Kirbv, 124 Wn. App. at 467.
20 For instance, Marin describes as "unwarranted discipline" a letter
recommending withdrawal of his reprimand from Horton. He mischaracterizes
his TLC as containing "threats of discipline." He refers to finding "frightening
racial materials at his desk," though the record shows he found the items in a
part of the plant where he did not normally work and no one knew he would be.
And he asserts without support he "was disciplined for going home sick by
collective efforts" of numerous WTD employees.
In arguing he created a genuine issue of material fact as to adverse
employment actions, Marin again cites primarily to portions of the trial record,
which is not an appropriate basis for review. Boguch, 153 Wn. App. at 608.
21 See RAP 10.3(a)(6); Hernandez v. Stender. 182 Wn. App. 52, 59, 358
P.3d 1169(2014).
-12-
             

No. 72666-8-1/13

result in a discharge, demotion, or change his benefits or responsibilities.22 And

while Marin alleges that the County denied him training, he cites only to his

expert's report on county safety procedures. That report is not evidence of an

adverse employment action. Additionally, the report's conclusions—that WTD's

safety procedures were deficient for all employees—contradict Marin's assertion

that his supervisors treated him differently.

Second, Marin failed to raise a reasonable inference of discrimination. He

points to no evidence that the County took an adverse action against him

because of his protected class. Marin contends the County treated him

differently than a nonprotected employee, Billy Burton, who also made a lockout