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

1,797 chars

discrimination is protected activity under the federal anti-retaliation statute codified in Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-3. See, e.g., Martin v. Gen. Elec. Co., 891 F.
Supp. 1052, 1060 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (employee engaged in protected activity “when he sought legal
advice and had his attorney notify [employer] that he intended to seek redress for a possible age
discrimination claim”); see also EEOC Dec. No. 84-3 (1984) (“If . . . the [employer] discharged [the
employee] as a result of her complaining of the sexual harassment and consulting an attorney
about her legal rights, the [employer’s] action constitutes a violation” of Title VII). Similarly, Ward,
a senior partner in Symetra HR, acknowledged below that “every employee has a right . . . to seek
legal advice and representation. . . . We can’t stop an employee from doing that.” Symetra’s
counsel also acknowledged at oral argument that the WLAD prohibits an employer from retaliating
against an employee who seeks legal counsel in response to being subjected to discriminatory
practices forbidden by the WLAD. Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral argument, Bittner v. Symetra Life Ins.
Co., No. 85708-8-I (Sept. 19, 2024), at 14 min., 45 sec. to 18 min., 50 sec. (on file with court). The
same reasoning extends to Bittner, who advised other employees who have been subjected to
discrimination prohibited by the WLAD to seek legal counsel to remedy the discrimination.

- 14 -
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I

In support of its contrary position, Symetra cites to Gogel v. Kia Motors

Manufacturing of Georgia, Inc., 967 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc), in which

the Eleventh Circuit held that an employee’s “recruitment of a subordinate to sue