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

1,752 chars

employer’s assertion of poor performance does not give rise to a reasonable inference of

discrimination.” Id. at 191.

Mackey did not present any evidence to dispute that Home Depot actually concluded,

based on facts uncovered in the investigation, that she violated company discount policies. And

she did not present any evidence that this conclusion was not the actual reason she was

terminated.

We conclude that there is no genuine issue of fact that Home Depot’s reason for

terminating Mackey was a pretext for a termination for discriminatory reasons.

b. No Discriminatory Motivation

Even if Mackey cannot show that Home Depot’s reason for terminating her was

pretextual, she still can satisfy her burden under the third step of the McDonnell Douglas

framework by showing that discrimination, retaliation, or violation of public policy also was a

substantial motivating factor for the termination. See Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 527.

Mackey argues that a motivating factor for her termination was that she had complained

to the store manager that Krall had berated and attacked her because of her disabilities. She

claims that the short period of time between her complaint (September 27) and the termination

(October 9) gives rise to an inference that her complaint was a factor in the termination.

Mackey has presented no other evidence suggesting that Home Depot had a

discriminatory motivation. Therefore, the question here is whether the timing of Mackey’s

termination in relation to her complaint, standing alone, is sufficient to create an inference of a

substantial discriminatory motive sufficient to avoid summary judgment.

21
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52293-4-II