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

1,727 chars

repeatedly had provided unauthorized double discounts and had otherwise violated company

policies regarding discounts, amounting to a loss of over $17,000; and (2) Home Depot believed

that Mackey had admitted to violating discount policies in her interview with Weaver. Mackey

5
The other three cases the court in Currier cited also were addressing the employee’s prima
facie case. Vasquez v. State, 94 Wn. App. 976, 984-85, 974 P.2d 348 (1999); Kahn v. Salerno,
90 Wn. App. 110, 130-31, 951 P.2d 321 (1998); Graves v. Dept. of Game, 76 Wn. App. 705,
712, 887 P.2d 424 (1994)).

23
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52293-4-II

was told that she was being terminated for improperly applying discounts to sales. Further, in

her deposition Mackey admitted that fair reasons for termination would be (1) improperly

discounting sales, (2) giving a discount on the sale of an item without manger approval, and (3)

giving double discounts on sales. Home Depot’s investigation supported each of those reasons.

And Mackey has not presented any direct or indirect evidence that some reason other than the

results of the investigation was a substantial motivating factor for her termination.

We conclude that Mackey did not present evidence that Home Depot’s stated reason for

her termination was a pretext for discrimination, retaliation, or violation of public policy.

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing Mackey’s discriminatory discharge,

retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy claims.

C. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

Mackey argues that the trial court erred in dismissing her failure to provide a reasonable