Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,758 chars

Symetra’s motion with respect to Bittner’s WLAD claims and dismissed them, and

denied Symetra’s motion with respect to Bittner’s remaining claims. After the

hearing, the trial court issued written orders memorializing its oral rulings. 4

The case proceeded to trial, and the jury did not find Symetra liable on any

claims. The trial court awarded costs to Symetra as the prevailing party. Bittner

appeals.

Bittner argues the trial court erroneously dismissed his retaliation claims on

summary judgment. We agree.

A. Statutory framework and standard of review

The WLAD prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, age,

disability, and other protected characteristics. RCW 49.60.030. To accomplish

4 The order granting in part Symetra’s motion for summary judgment also dismissed Freestone as

a defendant because the only claim asserted against him was Bittner’s retaliation claim.

-7-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I

the act’s purpose of eliminating and preventing discrimination, the legislature has

directed Washington courts to liberally construe the WLAD’s provisions. RCW

49.60.010; RCW 49.60.020. “[A] plaintiff bringing a discrimination case in

Washington assumes the role of a private attorney general, vindicating a policy of

the highest priority.” Jin Zhu v. N. Cent. Educ. Serv. Dist.-ESD 171, 189 Wn.2d

607, 614, 404 P.3d 504 (2017) (quoting Marquis v. City of Spokane, 130 Wn.2d

97, 109, 922 P.2d 43 (1996)).

The WLAD also prohibits employers from retaliating against persons who

oppose discriminatory practices prohibited by the act. The act makes it unlawful

for an employer to “discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person