Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
Full Text
1,767 chars15 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. 49631-3-II civil case.” Carver v. State, 147 Wn. App. 567, 573, 197 P.3d 678 (2008). “‘Simply because the tort action rests on public policy does not mean that public policy dictates that collateral estoppel should never be applied.’” Carver, 147 Wn. App. at 573 (quoting Christensen, 152 Wn.2d at 313). The legislature has not chosen to bar issue preclusion in the WLAD. Chapter 49.60 RCW. Accordingly, “collateral estoppel may be applicable to an action brought under our antidiscrimination laws.” Carver, 147 Wn. App. at 574. ii. Discrimination We next consider whether the issues raised in a claim under chapter 49.60 RCW are identical to the issues upon which the arbitrator ruled. RCW 49.60.180(2) makes it unlawful for employers “[t]o discharge or bar any person from employment because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability.” To establish a prima facie case of discrimination by disparate treatment, a plaintiff must show that (1) he belongs to a protected class, (2) he was treated less favorably in the terms or conditions of his employment (3) than a similarly situated, nonprotected employee, and (4) he and the nonprotected employee were doing substantially the same work; if the employer then proffers a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, then (5) the plaintiff must produce evidence indicating that the employer’s reason is pretextual. Johnson v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 80 Wn. App. 212, 226-27, 907 P.2d 1223 (1996); see also Crownover v. Dep’t of Transp., 165 Wn.