Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/845926.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,558 chars

admissions on file demonstrate there is no genuine issue of material fact and the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). We consider all facts

and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—here, Dr.

Litvack. Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 526.

A

“WLAD prohibits employers from discharging any employee on the basis of a

protected characteristic, including age and gender.” Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 526;

RCW 49.60.180. Intentional discrimination is difficult to prove, however, because

“[d]irect, ‘smoking gun’ evidence of discriminatory animus is rare, since ‘[t]here will

seldom be “eyewitness” testimony as to the employer’s mental processes.’” Mikkelsen,

189 Wn.2d at 526 (quoting Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I, 144 Wn.2d 172, 179, 23 P.3d

440 (2001), abrogated in part by Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d 516). Because intentional

discrimination is difficult to prove, Washington follows the three-part evidentiary burden-

shifting formula set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.

Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 526. “‘The shifting

burdens of proof set forth in McDonnell Douglas are designed to assure that the plaintiff

[has] his [or her] day in court despite the unavailability of direct evidence.’” Mikkelsen,

-14-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 84592-6-I/15

189 Wn.2d at 526 (quoting Hill, 144 Wn.2d at 179). The McDonnell Douglas burden

shifting framework has three steps, or prongs: