Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/318583.pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,741 chars

23
I
1I
             

i

I
.1
No. 31858-3-111
Sambas ivan v. Kadlec Med. Ctr.

covenants at issue would not have violated § 1982. But this Court took a
broader view of the statute. Although the covenants could have been
enforced without denying the general right of Negroes to purchase or lease
real estate, the enforcement ofthose covenants would nonetheless have
denied the Negro purchasers "the same right 'as is enjoyed by white
citizens .... '" [Hurd,] 334 U.S. at 34,68 S. Ct. at 852,92 L. Ed. at 1194.
That result, this Court concluded, was prohibited by § 1982. To suggest
otherwise, the Court said, "is to reject the plain meaning oflanguage."
Ibid.

Jones, 392 U.S. at 418-19.

Dr. Sambasivan's evidence presented a jury question of impairment supporting a

§ 1981 claim. It was error for the trial court to grant summary judgment dismissing it.

Ill. Retaliation under RCW 49.60.210(1)

RCW 49.60.210(1) provides:

It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union,
or other person to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any
person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by this
chapter, or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any
proceeding under this chapter.

To maintain a retaliation claim under the Washington Law Against Discrimination

(WLAD), chapter 49.60 RCW, a plaintiff must establish that (1) he participated in a

statutorily protected activity, (2) an adverse employment action was taken against him,

and (3) his activity and employer's adverse action were causally connected. Hollenback

v. Shriners Hosps. For Children, 149 Wn. App. 810, 821,206 P.3d 337 (2009). The