Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2052293-4-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

1,758 chars

there is a lack of evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim. Id. Once the defendant has made

such a showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present specific facts that show a genuine

issue of material fact. Id. Summary judgment is appropriate if a plaintiff fails to show sufficient

evidence to establish a question of fact as to the existence of an element on which he or she will

7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52293-4-II

have the burden of proof at trial. Lake Chelan Shores Homeowners Ass’n v. St. Paul Fire &

Marine Ins. Co., 176 Wn. App. 168, 179, 313 P.3d 408 (2013).

B. WRONGFUL TERMINATION CLAIMS

Mackey argues that the trial court erred in dismissing her discriminatory discharge,

retaliation, and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claims because she made a prima

facie case of each claim and presented sufficient evidence to establish a question of fact as to

whether a discriminatory motive could be inferred from the timing between her complaint about

Krall’s disability-related conduct and Mackey’s termination. We hold that the trial court did not

err in granting summary judgment in favor of Home Depot on Mackey’s wrongful termination

claims.

1. Legal Principles

All of Mackey’s wrongful termination claims arise from her allegation that she

complained to Tilton, the store manager, about Krall verbally attacking her because of her

disabilities. She asserts three causes of action.

First, the WLAD prohibits an employer from discharging an employee because of certain

protected characteristics, including a “sensory, mental, or physical disability.” RCW

49.60.180(2). Violation of this provision supports a discriminatory discharge claim. See