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

First, Boyd presented evidence that Maddox acted out of animus. Before the investigations

began, she told Boyd that she would " make sure [ he] can' t work in any of the 50 states" after he

rejected her advances. 8 RP at 983. She also told Cook -Gomez, the other investigator, that she

knew Boyd was a liar. Maddox then reported Boyd' s conduct to management and assisted with

fact -gathering for both investigations against Boyd. WSH relied on those facts in determining

Boyd' s discipline.

Second, Rivera' s investigation was not a supervening cause. His review of Cook- Gomez' s

investigation relied on information Maddox prepared. And he did not complete a review of

Maddox' s investigation. Instead, he stopped his review after determining that a witness to one of

the alleged threats had recanted. Despite this lack of an independent investigation, WSH

reprimanded Boyd for all of his alleged threatening comments.

Third, the " cat' s paw" instruction was not inconsistent with the substantial factor

requirement. The " cat' s paw" instruction read, " If a supervisor performs an act motivated by

retaliatory animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and

if that act is relied on by the employer and is a substantial factor in the ultimate employment action,

then the employer is liable for retaliation." CP at 2162. This instruction is consistent with the law

15
             

45174 -3 -I1

on subordinate bias liability. "[ Ijf a supervisor performs an act motivated by ... animus that is

intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate