Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, how does one establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge? Here’s my point of view.
(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)
Advertisement
RETALIATORY DISCHARGE (WA STATE): THE PRIMA FACIE CASE
“In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, … [a plaintiff] must show[:]
(1) he engaged in a statutorily protected activity;
(2) he was discharged or had some adverse employment action taken against him; and
(3) retaliation was a substantial motive behind the adverse employment action.
Davis v. West One Automotive Group, 140 Wn.App. 449, 460 (Div. 3 2007), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1039 (Wash. 2008) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis, hyperlinks, and paragraph formatting added).
EXAMPLE: DAVIS v. WEST ONE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP
In Davis v. West One Automotive Group, the Washington State Court of Appeals (division 3) determined that plaintiff Davis established a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge based, in part, on the following:
[1] … Davis, an African American, was hired as a salesman for West One in February 2005 and terminated in July 2005.
[2] During the course of his five-month employment, Mr. Davis experienced racially charged comments in the workplace.
[3] On one occasion, West One manager and Mr. Davis’s supervisor … asked Mr. Davis if he knew “why blacks have a day off on Martin Luther King Day?” When Mr. Davis said he did not know, … [his supervisor] responded, “Because they shot and killed his black ass.” Mr. Davis told … [his supervisor] the comment was inappropriate and not to make such a comment again.
[4] Another time, … [Mr. Davis’ supervisor] stated, “Blacks on the eastside, Mexicans on the west; hell I don’t know.” Mr. Davis was offended, and told … [his supervisor] so.
[5] A third incident involved … [Mr. Davis’ supervisor] walking by Mr. Davis’s desk, kicking it and remarking, “What’s up, bitc[#].” Mr. Davis was offended, regarding “bitc[#]” as a derogatory term some African American men use to refer to each other. Mr. Davis again told … [his supervisor] he was offended.
[6] [A] [f]ellow sales employee … also made comments that Mr. Davis found racially offensive. On an occasion when Mr. Davis had customers in the finance office and his telephone rang, … [the co-worker] stopped him from answering stating, “Hey, Buckwheat, you can’t get that call.” Mr. Davis was offended and asked … [the co-worker] to refer to him by name.
…
[7] Mr. Davis complained to West One Human Resources about … [his co-worker’s] “Buckwheat” comment. No disciplinary action was taken.
[8] At a subsequent staff meeting, [Mr. Davis’ supervisor] discussed generally with the entire staff that, “no use of any type of insensitive name, nickname or not, would be tolerated.”
[9] Because no action had been taken against … [Mr. Davis’ co-worker] and because he regarded … [his supervisor] as “the worst offender of racial discrimination,” Mr. Davis did not complain again.
Id. at 453-54 (internal citations omitted).
In the Court of Appeals, “Mr. Davis claim[ed] he was fired for reporting hostile work environment.” Id. at 460 (hyperlink added). The Court considered, inter alia, the foregoing facts and found, in part, as follows:
This is a protected activity covered by statute and his termination qualifies as an adverse employment action. It is unclear if retaliation was a substantial motive behind the termination. The evidence presented at summary judgment would support a finding either way on the causation issue. This is a jury question.
Id. (internal citations omitted). Thus, the Court determined that plaintiff Davis established a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge and–after applying the McDonnel Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework–concluded that “Summary judgment dismissal of Mr. Davis’s … claim was not appropriate.” Id. at 461.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
Definition of Prima Facie Case**
McDonnel Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework**
The Prima Facie Case: Discriminatory Discharge
The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation
Top-3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation
Top-3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail
Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action
Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity
Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard
** (NOTE: This is an external link that will take you to our Williams Law Group Blog.)
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
