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
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049631-3-II%20Published%20Order.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

1,762 chars

summary judgment. The same analysis from the WLAD section above also applies to the

retaliation claim alleged by Billings.

“An employer may not retaliate against an employee for opposing the employer’s

discriminatory practices or for filing a discrimination claim against the employer.” Milligan v.

Thompson, 110 Wn. App. 628, 638, 42 P.3d 418 (2002); RCW 49.60.210. “The burden-shifting

scheme is the same as for discrimination claims.” Milligan, 110 Wn. App. at 638.

To establish a prima case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in a

statutorily protected activity, (2) the employer took an adverse employment action against him,

and (3) there is a causal connection between his activity and the employer’s adverse action.

Milligan, 110 Wn. App. at 638. “[W]hen the employee’s evidence of pretext is weak or the

employer’s nonretaliatory evidence is strong, summary judgment is appropriate.” Milligan, 110

Wn. App. at 638-39.

Even if we assume that Billings could establish a prima facie case of retaliation, he failed

to show that Steilacoom, Schaub, and Loveless used their justifications for his termination as a

pretext to cover retaliation. He did not provide any evidence at summary judgment that could link

his discharge with his union activities. The arbitrator concluded that multiple bases existed as just

cause to support Billings’s termination including: unsatisfactory performance, insubordination,

departures from the truth, failure to perform, unbecoming conduct, unsatisfactory performance,

and leaving his duty post.

Because Billings’s employer’s nonretaliatory evidence is strong, and he failed to present

evidence of pretext, we conclude that summary judgment was appropriate. Therefore, we conclude