Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,738 chars

RCW 49.60.210(1), “extends broad protections to ‘any person’ engaging in

statutorily protected activity from retaliation.” Currier v. Northland Servs., Inc., 182

Wn. App. 733, 742, 332 P.3d 1006 (2014). The statute generally provides two

types of protection to employees. The first, known as the “opposition clause,”

protects employees who have “opposed any practices forbidden by [the WLAD].”

Lodis v. Corbis Holdings, Inc., 172 Wn. App. 835, 848, 292 P.3d 779 (2013)

(quoting RCW 49.60.210(1)). The second, known as the “participation clause,”

protects employees who have “file[d] a charge, testifie[d], or assist[ed] in any

proceeding under this chapter.” Id. (citing RCW 49.60.210(1)). The list of

prohibited retaliatory actions in RCW 46.60.210(1) is “explicitly not exclusive,” and

“specific statutory terms may reasonably inform courts as to the meaning of

broader statutory terms.” Jin Zhu, 189 Wn.2d at 618.

Construing the WLAD liberally, as we must, we conclude that Bittner has

established fact issues as to whether he engaged in protected activity. After Rotz

expressed to Bittner her dissatisfaction with how Symetra HR responded to her

complaint accusing Manning of harassment and discrimination, Bittner told her,

- 12 -
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I

“[Y]ou need to get legal advice. This isn’t right.” And when Doe expressed similar

sentiments about how Symetra failed to meaningfully address her complaint

accusing Koettker of sexual harassment and discrimination, Bittner likewise

suggested that she should “seek legal advice and find out what she can do.”

Bittner also reported his own concerns to HR about Rotz and Doe being subjected