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

1,774 chars

13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52293-4-II

Accordingly, we conclude that Mackey submitted sufficient evidence to create a

reasonable inference – which establishes a question of fact – that she engaged in a statutorily

protected activity.

b. Causal Connection

To prove causation, an employee must show that retaliation was a substantial factor in

motivating the adverse employment action. Cornwell, 192 Wn.2d at 412. Retaliation need not

be the main reason for the employment action. Currier v. Northland Servs., Inc., 182 Wn. App.

733, 746, 332 P.3d 1006 (2014). At the summary judgment stage, the employee is required to

show only that “a reasonable jury could find that retaliation was a substantial factor.” Cornwell,

192 Wn.2d at 412-13.

However, the employee also must show that the employer had knowledge that the

employee had engaged in protected activity. Id. at 413. “[A]n employer cannot retaliate against

an employee for an action of which the employer is unaware.” Id. at 414. An employee can

make this showing either by demonstrating that the employer had actual knowledge of the

protected activity or that the employer knew or suspected that an employee had engaged in the

protected activity. Id. at 413, 421.

i. Knowledge

Here, Mackey stated in her declaration that she told Tilton about Krall’s behavior before

the investigation occurred and before she was terminated. This statement was sufficient for a

reasonable jury to conclude that Tilton knew that Mackey had engaged in a statutorily protected

activity.

Home Depot argues that Tilton’s knowledge is immaterial because the actual decision-

maker for Mackey’s termination was not Tilton but Robert Beaubian, the district human