Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,720 chars
the company” did not constitute protected oppositional conduct under Title VII

because it “so interfere[d] with the employee’s performance of her job that it

render[ed] her ineffective in the position for which she was employed.” Id. at 1139-

44 (citing Rosser v. Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., Local No. 438, 616 F.2d 221

(5th Cir. 1980)). This federal authority is unpersuasive because, as explained

above, our court has expressly disavowed such a standard that would require HR,

management, and legal employees to prioritize their duty to insulate the company

from legal liability over their desire to eliminate and prevent discrimination in the

workplace. See Lodis, 172 Wn. App. at 851. Additionally, Bittner merely

suggested to other employees that they seek legal advice—he did not recruit them

to do so—and this conduct did not so interfere with the performance of his job that

it rendered him ineffective as an RVP. On this record, Gogel is inapposite.

Symetra also claims that “[t]he record does not support Bittner’s claim that

he opposed discrimination on behalf of others” because “nothing beyond Bittner’s

assertions in this lawsuit supports that” claim. This argument misrepresents the

record and misunderstands Bittner’s burden of production to survive a motion for

summary judgment. “[O]n summary judgment a nonmoving party’s declaration

must be taken as true and can create a genuine issue of material fact even if it is

‘self-serving.’” Mackey, 12 Wn. App. 2d at 575; see also Haley v. Amazon.com

Servs., LLC, 25 Wn. App. 2d 207, 220, 522 P.3d 80 (2022) (“[C]lassifying a party’s

- 15 -
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I