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

1,752 chars

17, 21, 896 P.2d 665 (1995)). Summary judgment is proper where “there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” CR 56(c). “This court reviews a motion for summary

judgment de novo, construing all facts and reasonable inferences from those facts

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Blue Diamond Grp., Inc. v. KB

Seattle 1, Inc., 163 Wn. App. 449, 453, 266 P.3d 881 (2011).

B. Proof of retaliation

With these principles in mind, we turn to Bittner’s retaliation claims. We

conclude that Bittner has produced sufficient evidence under the direct evidence

test to establish fact issues regarding the three elements of his retaliation claims

and to survive a motion for summary judgment on those claims.

1. Protected activity

Bittner argues he produced sufficient evidence to establish fact issues as to

whether he engaged in protected activity under the WLAD. We agree.

To determine whether Bittner’s conduct amounts to protected activity, we

must interpret the WLAD. When interpreting a statute, we begin with the statute’s

- 11 -
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I

plain language to give effect to the legislature’s intent. Jin Zhu, 189 Wn.2d at 613-

14. Given the WLAD’s important purpose of eliminating and preventing

discrimination, “even in a plain language analysis, the WLAD’s provisions must be

given ‘liberal construction.’” Id. (quoting Marquis, 130 Wn.2d at 109). We may

also discern a statute’s plain meaning by consulting the text of related statutes or

other provisions in the same act. Id. at 616.

We have previously acknowledged that the WLAD’s retaliation provision,