Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/857088.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,744 chars

leave expired, Symetra informed Bittner that it was “exercising our right to fill your

position and/or restructure the role” and placed Cooley into Bittner’s position

permanently. Symetra classified Bittner as an “employee without position” and told

him he could apply for another position within Symetra. On February 18, 2020,

Bittner accepted a position at another company, and he began working there in

March. After learning Bittner had accepted this other position, Symetra considered

Bittner to have resigned from Symetra effective March 31, 2020.

B. Procedural history

Bittner sued Symetra and Freestone alleging (1) retaliation in violation of

the WLAD, (2) “failure to accommodate and enter into the interactive process in

violation of the WLAD,” (3) breach of express unilateral contract, (4) breach of

implied-in-fact contract, (5) willful withholding of wages in violation of RCW 49.48

3 29 U.S.C. § 2601.

-6-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I

and RCW 49.52.070, (6) breach of unilateral contract, (7) unjust enrichment, and

(8) “disability discrimination in violation of the WLAD.” (Emphasis omitted).

Both parties moved for summary judgment. Bittner’s motion for partial

summary judgment asked the trial court to (a) rule as a matter of law “that

encouraging an employee to consult with a lawyer to better understand her right

to be free from workplace discrimination is . . . protected opposition activity under

RCW 49.60.210,” and (b) dismiss nine of Symetra’s affirmative defenses.

Symetra’s motion sought dismissal of all of Bittner’s claims. At a hearing on the

parties’ summary judgment motions, the trial court denied Bittner’s motion, granted