Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 45174-3-II Order Publishing Opinion.pdf

adverse employment actions. WSH asserts that there was no evidence that the decision makers

were aware of the sexual harassment claims until after WSH began the investigations against Boyd

and there was no evidence that Maddox was involved with the decision to discipline Boyd.

Although WSH is correct that it did not have notice of Boyd' s sexual harassment claim until after

12
             

45174 -3 -I1

it had started the investigations into Boyd' s conduct, the adverse employment acts commenced

after Maddox threatened Boyd to not report her harassment of him. He presented evidence that

Maddox' s actions were a substantial factor in the investigations and resulting discipline. Rivera' s

investigation did not break the causal connection between her animus and the adverse employment

actions.

A] plaintiff bringing suit under RCW 49. 60. 210 must prove 'causation by showing that

retaliation was a substantial factor motivating the adverse employment decision." Allison v. Hous.

Auth. of City of Seattle, 118 Wn.2d 79, 96, 821 P. 2d 34 ( 1991). In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562

U. S. 411, 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1191, 179 L. Ed. 2d 144 ( 2011), the Supreme Court confronted the

problem where the official who made the decision to take an adverse employment action " has no

discriminatory animus but is influenced by previous company action that is the product of a like

animus in someone else." There, the plaintiff, a member of the Army Reserve, was fired and sued

his employer under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act

USERRA). Staub, 131 S. Ct. at 1190. He alleged that his supervisor' s antimilitary animus