Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,727 chars

- 16 -
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I

and Rotz to seek legal advice, they issued verbal and written reprimands to Bittner

in July 2018, placed him on a PIP in February 2019, and planned to terminate him

in October 2019. After Bittner expressed his opposition to his superiors’ efforts to

manage out Jaggers, Symetra initially terminated Bittner’s employment, cut off his

access to Symetra’s systems, and ultimately placed another employee in his

position in January 2020. A reasonable juror could find that these actions,

especially when taken together, were materially adverse.

Symetra claims no adverse action occurred because it did not terminate

Bittner’s employment but rather “filled his role,” which “had no adverse impact on

Bittner” because “he could not have performed in the role at that time, as he was

not medically cleared to work.” This argument fails because termination is not the

only form of adverse action; issuing a written reprimand, cutting off an employee’s

access to company systems, and removing an employee from their position—all

of which occurred here—may constitute adverse actions. See Boyd, 187 Wn. App.

at 14 (being “issued a written reprimand” may be an adverse action); Alonso v.

Qwest Commc’ns Co., LLC, 178 Wn. App. 734, 746-47, 315 P.3d 610 (2013)

(losing benefits associated with a position, such as a phone and computer, may

be an adverse action). Moreover, a reasonable juror could conclude that Bittner

was effectively terminated from his RVP position, even if Symetra did not do so

formally. Thus, we conclude Bittner has established fact issues regarding the

second element of his retaliation claims.