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

Full Text

1,795 chars

Mikkelsen v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Kittitas County, 189 Wn.2d 516, 526, 404 P.3d 464 (2017).

Second, the WLAD prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for

opposing any discriminatory practices forbidden by the WLAD. RCW 49.60.210. Violation of

this provision supports a retaliation claim. See Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403,

411, 430 P.3d 229 (2018).

8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52293-4-II

Third, as a narrow exception to the employment at will doctrine, an employer cannot

terminate an employee for “ ‘reasons that contravene a clear mandate of public policy.’ ” Martin

v. Gonzaga Univ., 191 Wn.2d 712, 723, 425 P.3d 837 (2018) (quoting Thompson v. St. Regis

Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219, 232, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984)). Violation of this rule gives rise to a

claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Martin, 191 Wn.2d at 722-23.

2. Burden Shifting Framework

Because direct evidence of discriminatory intent is rare, an employee “may rely on

circumstantial, indirect, and inferential evidence to establish discriminatory action.” Mikkelsen,

189 Wn.2d at 526; see also Cornwell, 192 Wn.2d at 411. Where the employee lacks direct

evidence, Washington has adopted the three step evidentiary burden-shifting framework

announced in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d

668 (1973) for discriminatory discharge claims. Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 526-27; Scrivener v.

Clark Coll., 181 Wn.2d 439, 445-46, 334 P.3d 541 (2014). The evidentiary burden-shifting

framework is the same for retaliation claims as for discrimination claims. Cornwell, 192 Wn.2d

at 411. And the same general framework applies to wrongful discharge in violation of public