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
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
Full Text
1,703 charsagainst because of her disabilities. Complaining about discriminatory conduct is statutorily protected activity. RCW 49.60.210; see Estevez v. Faculty Club of Univ. of Washington, 129 Wn. App. 774, 799, 120 P.3d 579 (2005).2 Home Depot’s argument is that we should disregard Mackey’s statement in her declaration. It claims that Mackey’s statement is not sufficient to show that she actually complained before her termination because it was self-serving, unsubstantiated, and could not be corroborated. However, on summary judgment a nonmoving party’s declaration must be taken as true and can create a genuine issue of material fact even if it is “self-serving.” Reagan v. Newton, 7 Wn. App. 2d 781, 806, 436 P.3d 411, review denied, 193 Wn.2d 1030 (2019).3 2 It is unclear whether Mackey’s complaint related to her disabilities. Mackey’s report of the incident does not show that Krall verbally attacked her because of her disabilities, only that her disabilities made it difficult to respond. However, Home Depot does not argue otherwise, so we assume without deciding that Mackey’s report of her incident with Krall could be interpreted for summary judgment purposes as a complaint that she was being discriminated against because of her disabilities. 3 Home Depot also argues that Mackey’s declaration that she complained the day after the incident with Krall conflicts with her deposition testimony. A plaintiff cannot contradict unambiguous deposition testimony with a subsequent declaration. Robinson v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 106 Wn. App. 104, 121, 22 P.3d 818 (2001). But in the portion of the deposition to which Home Depot cites, Mackey did not address the complaint to Tilton.