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

1,749 chars

policy claims. Martin, 191 Wn.2d at 725-26.

First, an employee must make a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge by showing

that he or she was (1) within a statutorily protected class, (2) discharged by the defendant, and

(3) doing satisfactory work. Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 527.1 Where the employee establishes a

prima facie case, a rebuttable presumption of discrimination exists. Id.

1
Under McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, some courts have held that a prima facie case of
discrimination also requires plaintiffs to show that after their discharge, the position remained
open and the employer continued to seek applicants with qualifications similar to the plaintiff.
Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 529. In Washington, this replacement element is not required to prove
a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. at 528-532.

9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52293-4-II

Second, the burden shifts to the employer, who must “ ‘articulate a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason’ ” for the discharge. Id. (quoting Scrivener, 181 Wn.2d 446). The

employer is not required to persuade the court that it actually was motivated by the

nondiscriminatory reason, only that the employer’s evidence if taken as true would permit the

conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason. Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 533.

Third, if the employer meets this burden, the employee must produce sufficient evidence

showing that the employer’s alleged nondiscriminatory reason for the discharge was a “pretext.”

Id. at 527. “ ‘An employee may satisfy the pretext prong by offering sufficient evidence to

create a genuine issue of material fact either (1) that the defendant’s reason is pretextual or (2)