Title VII Archives - Washington Employment Law Digest

April 27, 2022October 20, 2024

Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Company, 129 Wn.2d 572 (Wash. 1996)

This is a case summary of Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Company, 129 Wn.2d 572 (Wash. 1996). Subjects include, but are not limited to the following:

» WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (“LAD” or “WLAD”)

» PUNITIVE (EXEMPLARY) DAMAGES

IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. This is not a resource for the actual and complete appellate court opinion. 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

**Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Company, 129 Wn.2d 572 (Wash. 1996)**

case summary – 7 Facts:

[1] On March 16, 1990, Defendant North Coast Life Insurance Co. terminated Plaintiff Julie Dailey’s employment.

[2] Dailey and co-Plaintiff Gregory Dailey filed a wrongful termination claim that included an allegation of sex discrimination in violation of the LAD and specifically sought punitive damages.

[3] Both parties moved for partial summary judgment on the availability of punitive damages under the LAD.

[4] The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion, concluding RCW 49.60.030(2) both permitted punitive damages in an employment discrimination action and operated retrospectively.

[5] Defendants appealed.

[6] At the request of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court accepted certification of the case.

[7] We now reverse.

Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Company, 129 Wn.2d 572 (Wash. 1996) (hyperlinks added). This case summary includes both the Majority and Concurring Opinions.

» MAJORITY OPINION: DOLLIVER, Justice; DURHAM, C.J., and SMITH, GUY and MADSEN, JJ., concur.

**ISSUE #1 (Majority Opinion):** Did the trial court err in granting Plaintiff’s motion, concluding RCW 49.60.030(2) both permitted punitive damages in an employment discrimination action and operated retrospectively?

[1-1] WA STATE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY DISAPPROVED PUNITIVE DAMAGES AS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY: “Since its earliest decisions, this court has consistently disapproved punitive damages as contrary to public policy.” Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Company, 129 Wn.2d at 574 (citing Spokane Truck & Dray Co. v. Hoefer, 2 Wash. 45, 50-56, 25 P. 1072 (1891)).

[1-2] PUNITIVE DAMAGES IMPOSE ON DEFENDANT A PENALTY RESERVED FOR CRIMINAL SANCTIONS AND AWARD PLAINTIFF WITH WINDFALL BEYOND FULL COMPENSATION: “Punitive damages not only impose on the defendant a penalty generally reserved for criminal sanctions, but also award the plaintiff with a windfall beyond full compensation.” Id. (citing Kadoranian v. Bellingham Police Dep’t, 119 Wash.2d 178, 188, 829 P.2d 1061 (1992)).

[1-3] THE WA STATE LEGISLATURE HAS ASSURED THAT PLAINTIFFS MAY BECOME WHOLE THROUGH COMPENSATORY DAMAGES: “Particularly in the case of workplace discrimination, the Legislature has assured a plaintiff may ‘become whole’ through a full panoply of compensatory damages.” Id. (citing Barr v. Interbay Citizens Bank, 96 Wash.2d 692, 699-700, 635 P.2d 441, amended by 96 Wash.2d 692, 649 P.2d 827 (1982)).

[1-4] PUNITIVE DAMAGES REQUIRE EXPRESS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIZATION: “Governing resolution of this case is the court’s long-standing rule prohibiting punitive damages without express legislative authorization.” Id. at 575 (internal citations omitted).

[1-5] FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT:

Civil Rights Act of 1964 — Provided Private Remedies: “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided private remedies for employment discrimination in Title VII, historically authorizing only equitable relief.” Id.

Civil Rights Act of 1991 — Allowed Greater Trial Costs: “By the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress amended the 1964 Act to allow greater trial costs, including expert fees.” Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Company, 129 Wn.2d at 575-76 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); see Xieng v. Peoples Nat’l Bank, 120 Wash.2d 512, 528, 844 P.2d 389 (1993)).

“Revised Statutes” Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 1981a) — Allowed Compensatory and Punitive Damages for Intentional Employment Discrimination: “The 1991 Act also amended 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, known as the Revised Statutes, to permit compensatory and punitive damages in an action for intentional employment discrimination:

provided that the complaining party cannot recover under section 1981 of [the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. § 1981) ], the complaining party may recover compensatory and punitive damages as allowed in subsection (b) of this section, in addition to any relief authorized by section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from the respondent.

Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 576 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(1)) (alteration in original) (paragraph formatting and hyperlinks added).

[1-6] WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD):

1973 — Private Equitable and Compensatory Relief Allowed Under the WLAD: “Since 1973, the Legislature has authorized private equitable and compensatory relief under the LAD:

to enjoin further violations, to recover the actual damages sustained by him, or both, together with the cost of suit including a reasonable attorney’s fees or any other remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964….

Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 575 (citing former RCW 49.60.030(2)).

1993 — Legislature Amended the WLAD to Acknowledge the Civil Rights Act of 1991: “In 1993, the Legislature acknowledged the Civil Rights Act of 1991 by amending RCW 49.60.030(2) to ‘any other remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended.'” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 575 (citing RCW 49.60.030(2)) (hyperlink and emphasis added).

[1-7] UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1991 PUNITIVE DAMAGES OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY ONLY: “The United States Supreme Court has determined punitive damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1991 operate prospectively only.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 578 (citing Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, —-, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1496, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994)).

[1-8] PROVISION OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES, A PENALTY AND A NEW RIGHT OF ACTION DO NOT QUALIFY AS REMEDIAL AMENDMENT TO PERMIT PRSUMPTION OF RETROACTIVITY: “[T]he provision of punitive damages, a penalty and a new right of action [do not] qualify as a remedial amendment to permit a presumption of retroactivity.” Id. at 578 (citing Agency Budget Corp. v. Washington Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 93 Wash.2d 416, 425-26, 610 P.2d 361 (1980); Johnston v. Beneficial Management Corp., 85 Wash.2d 637, 640-41, 538 P.2d 510 (1975); see Landgraf, 511 U.S. at —-, 114 S.Ct. at 1506-07).

[1-9] THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY IS TOO AMBIGUOUS AND ATTENUATED TO BE EXPRESS: In this case, “[t]he trial court determined the LAD, RCW 49.60.30(2), expressly authorized punitive damages by incorporating that federal remedy by reference to the United States Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(1).” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 575 (citing Mackay v. Acorn Custom Cabinetry, Inc., 127 Wash.2d 302, 316, 898 P.2d 284 (1995) (Madsen, J., dissenting) (“noting RCW 49.60.030(2) does not authorize punitive damages under state law”)) (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

∴ Majority Court’s Analysis: “While we do not fault the trial court’s analytic framework, we find the statutory authority too ambiguous and attenuated to suffice as express.” Id.

[1-10] AMBIGUITIES PRECLUDE EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES: “Ambiguities cloud the relation between 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(1) and RCW 49.60.030(2) to preclude characterization of their link as an express authorization for punitive damages.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 576 (hyperlinks added).

∴ Majority Court’s Analysis — Amendment Limited to Costs:

“First, the structure of the language in RCW 49.60.030(2) arguably evinces an intent to incorporate only federal remedies qualifying as ‘costs.’ While the trial court read the provision as: ‘to recover the actual damages … together with … any other remedy …,’ we might reasonably read the term ‘including’ as restrictive: ‘the cost of suit including … any other remedy….’ Under the latter interpretation, punitive damages simply would fall outside the scope of the incorporation provision.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 576 (hyperlink added).

“We need not choose between these alternative meanings … to decide the resultant ambiguity cannot overcome Washington’s policy against punitive damages.” Id.

∴ Majority Court’s Analysis — Implied Incorporation Is Not Express Authorization:

“We find equally disturbing the relation between the provision of punitive damages in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. RCW 49.60.030(2) explicitly incorporates only the 1964 Act as amended, but whether the 1991 Act actually constitutes an amendment to the 1964 Act is unclear.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 576 (hyperlink added).

“The Civil Rights Act of 1991 did not directly amend Title VII to permit punitive damages, but rather amended the Revised Statutes, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. Indeed, the amendment explicitly describes compensatory and punitive damages ‘in addition to’ remedies available under the 1964 Act.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 576-77 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(1)) (hyperlinks added).

“An implied incorporation of the 1991 Act does not meet our standard for express authorization.” Id. at 577.

[1-11] THE COURT REAFFIRMS AND DISTINGUISHES XIENG: “The trial court found controlling this court’s prior analysis of the interplay between RCW 49.60.030(2) and the 1991 Act in Xieng, 120 Wash.2d 512, 844 P.2d 389.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 577 (hyperlink added). “Analyzing the scope of the incorporation of federal remedies by reference, Xieng held express legislative authorization for expert witness fees under the LAD lies in the explicit expert witness fee provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1991…. The trial court concluded Xieng compelled incorporation of all federal relief provided in the 1991 Act.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 577 (internal citations omitted).

∴ Majority Court’s Analysis: “We reaffirm and distinguish Xieng[ ][:]

Both the nature of the remedy and the relevant statutory authority in Xieng differ from the present case. Certainly expert witness fees have not received the extreme resistance and condemnation as punitive damages. See Spokane Truck, 2 Wash. at 50-56, 25 P. 1072.

Unlike the punitive damages provision, the expert witness fee provision contains an explicit amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

Moreover, the presence of the explicit amendatory language in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) reinforces our concern for the lack of an equally explicit amendment to the 1964 Act in 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(1).

At the same time, the incorporation of expert witness fees in Xieng is consistent with an interpretation of RCW 49.60.030(2) as limiting the incorporation of federal remedies to costs of suit. See Xieng, 120 Wash.2d at 528, 844 P.2d 389.

Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 577 (paragraph formatting added).

[1-12] IF LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO MAKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER THE WLAD, IT WOULD HAVE UNAMIBUOUSLY SO PROVIDED: “Where the Legislature has intended the exceptional relief of punitive damages, the statute has contained an explicit authorization.” Id. at 577 (citing RCW 9.73.230(11); RCW 19.86.090). “The Legislature here, presumably aware of Congress’ decision to allow punitive damages in the 1991 Civil Rights Act, had the opportunity to follow suit in its 1993 amendments to the LAD.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 577.

∴ Majority Court’s Analysis: “If the Legislature intended to make punitive damages available for employment discrimination under the LAD, it would have unambiguously so provided.” Id.

[1-13] PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM IS UNTIMELY — RETROSPECTIVE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE UNAVAILABLE: The Court “observe[d] that even if the LAD permitted punitive damages for employment discrimination generally, that relief would remain unavailable in the present case.” Id. at 578.

∴ Majority Court’s Analysis: “The Civil Rights Act, the only potential authorization for punitive damages under the LAD, did not permit that relief until 1991. Plaintiffs’ claim concerns conduct prior to 1991.” Id. “Retrospective punitive damages thus could not constitute a ‘remedy available’ under the Civil Rights Act.” Id. (citing RCW 49.60.030(2); McGinnis v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, 51 F.3d 805, 807-08 (9th Cir.1994)).

Conclusion of the issue — **-CONCLUSION-**

[1-14] PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE UNAVAILABLE UNDER THE WLAD, RCW 49.60; RETROSPECTIVE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE UNAVAILABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT: In this case, the Court held that “punitive damages are unavailable under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), RCW 49.60.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 574 (hyperlink added). Moreover, “[r]etrospective punitive damages … could not constitute a ‘remedy available’ under the Civil Rights Act.” Id. at 578.

» CONCURRING OPINION: TALMADGE, Justice (concurring); JOHNSON, ALEXANDER and SANDERS, JJ., concur.

“Although I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Ms. Dailey in this case, I disagree with the majority’s analysis on exemplary damages under RCW 49.60.030(2), and therefore write separately.” Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Company, 129 Wn.2d at 578 (emphasis added). NOTE: The term “exemplary damages” is synonymous with punitive damages. See Black’s Law Dictionary 417 (8th ed. 2004).

**ISSUE #2 (Concurring Opinion):** Did “the Legislature intend[ ] by its 1993 amendments to RCW 49.60, our Law Against Discrimination, to incorporate the remedy of exemplary damages allowed in federal civil rights actions[ ]”?

[2-1] FEDERAL LAW

Before 1991 — Punitive Damages Unavailable to Federal Civil Rights Plaintiffs: “Prior to 1991, a successful federal civil rights plaintiff generally could not recover exemplary damages.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 578-79 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5).

After 1991 — Punitive Damages Available to Successful Litigants Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964: “In the 1991 Civil Rights Act, Congress included a new statutory section, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, which provides:

In an action brought by a complaining party under section 706 or 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5, 2000e-16] against a respondent who engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact) prohibited under section 703, 704, or 717 of the Act [42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2, 2000e-3], and provided that the complaining party cannot recover under section 1981 of this title, the complaining party may recover compensatory and punitive damages as allowed in subsection (b) of this section, in addition to any relief authorized by section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from the respondent.

Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 579 (emphasis and hyperlinks added). Thus, “[u]nder the terms of the statute, a successful litigant under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can recover exemplary damages.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 579.

[2-2] WASHINGTON LAW

1993 Amendments: “In 1993, the Washington Legislature adopted amendments to RCW 49.60.030(2) relating to private actions under RCW 49.60, allowing a party to seek:

to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, …

Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 580 (citing Laws of 1993, ch. 69, § 1; Laws of 1993, ch. 510, § 3(2)) (emphasis in original) (hyperlinks added). “The ‘as amended’ language was adopted in two separate legislative enactments by the 1993 Legislature, ch. 69, Laws of 1993, § 1 and ch. 510, Laws of 1993, § 3(2).” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 580.

1995 Reenactment: “The Legislature reenacted RCW 49.60.030(2) in its present form combining the disparate amendments to RCW 49.60.030 in Ch. 135, Laws of 1995, § 3.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 580. “Thus, on three separate occasions in 1993 and 1995, the Legislature adopted legislative language incorporating into RCW 49.60 remedies authorized by the 1991 amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 580 (hyperlinks added).

The Legislature Intended to Incorporate Federal Remedies in the WLAD: “By adopting the ‘as amended’ language in 1993 and 1995, the Legislature intended to incorporate federal remedies in RCW 49.60.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 581 (hyperlink added).

Rule of Statutory Construction (Presumed Awareness): “The Legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretation of its statutes.” Id. at 581 (citing Friends of Snoqualmie Valley v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 118 Wash.2d 488, 496, 825 P.2d 300 (1992)).

Rule of Statutory Construction (Presumption of Acquiescence): “Another principle of statutory construction [is that] “Legislative silence regarding the construed portion of the statute in a subsequent amendment creates a presumption of acquiescence in that construction.” Id. (citing Baker v. Leonard, 120 Wash.2d 538, 545, 843 P.2d 1050 (1993)) (internal citations omitted).

[2-3] RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE 1993 AMENDMENTS: “In Landgraf v. U.S.I. Film Prods., a former employee brought an action alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[ ][:]

The United States Supreme Court held the provisions of the 1991 Civil Rights Act, including 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, do not apply to a case pending on appeal when the statute was enacted, and had prospective effect only. The Court declined to apply the 1991 amendments retroactively unless Congress made clear such an intent. The Court found no such clear Congressional intent for retroactive application of the 1991 amendments.

Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 582 (citing Landgraf v. U.S.I. Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1505, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994)) (hyperlinks added).

[2-4] FEDERAL LAW — SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANTS MAY RECOVER PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AS AMENDED BY 1991 LEGISLATION:

“The majority determines the 1991 Civil Rights Act may not have amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act, majority op. at 5, based on an argument first raised by amicus Washington Defense Trial Lawyers Association that 42 U.S.C. § 1981a is a separate section and does not actually amend the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 579 (hyperlink added).

∴ Concurring Court’s Analysis: “This hypertechnical argument ignores the plain language of 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(1) allowing exemplary damages in ‘an action brought by a complaining party under § 706 or 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 …'” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 579 (hyperlink added).

Example: McGinnis v. Kentucky Fired Chicken: “In McGinnis v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, 42 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.), amended and superseded by 51 F.3d 805 (9th Cir.1994), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit specifically held punitive damages are allowed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the 1991 Civil Rights Act: ‘Punitive damages are authorized by that statute today.'” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 579-80 (internal citations omitted).

Example: Landgraf v. U.S.I. Film Prods.: “The United States Supreme Court in Landgraf v. U.S.I. Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994) similarly held exemplary punitive damages were available under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 580.

“As interpreted by the federal courts, successful federal civil rights claimants may recover exemplary damages under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended by the 1991 legislation, as a means of enforcing federal antidiscrimination law.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 580.

[2-5] WASHINGTON LAW — EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION DOES NOT REQUIRE THE SPECIFIC WORDS “PUNITIVE DAMAGES”

“Notwithstanding … the statutory language, the majority finds exemplary damages are unavailable to claimants under RCW 49.60.030 because of Washington’s strong public policy against punitive damages.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 580 (internal citations omitted) (hyperlink added). “The majority asserts exemplary damages are unavailable under Washington law in the absence of express statutory authorization. By this, the majority seems to mean the Legislature must use the specific words “punitive damages.” Id. at 580-81.

∴ Concurring Court’s Analysis:

“This argument is too literal and ignores the clear direction of RCW 49.60.030 and the legislative history of the state and federal enactments.” Id. at 581 (hyperlink added).

The McGinnis Case. “By 1995, when the Legislature again amended RCW 49.60.030(2), the Legislature had the benefit of the decisions in Landgraf and McGinnis[ ][:]

In McGinnis, the Ninth Circuit held exemplary damages are available to successful claimants under RCW 49.60 because RCW 49.60.030(2) incorporated federal remedies and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, permitted successful claimants to recover exemplary damages.

Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 581 (hyperlinks added).

Canons of Statutory Construction. “[T]he Legislature [was not] ignorant of the nature of its own actions. As we have stated: The Legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretation of its statutes.” Id. “Another principle of statutory construction [is that] ‘Legislative silence regarding the construed portion of the statute in a subsequent amendment creates a presumption of acquiescence in that construction.'” Id. “The Legislature had to know it was incorporating the federal remedy of punitive damages into RCW 49.60.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 581 (hyperlink added).

Legislature’s Intent Rendered Meaningless. “By adopting the ‘as amended’ language in 1993 and 1995, the Legislature intended to incorporate federal remedies in RCW 49.60. But the majority’s interpretation of RCW 49.60.030(2) renders virtually meaningless the Legislature’s intent[:]

RCW 49.60.030(2) specifically mentions injunctive relief, and recovery of actual damages, costs and a reasonable attorney fee. We have already allowed expert witness fees as a cost of litigation. Xieng v. Peoples Nat’l Bank, 120 Wash.2d 512, 528, 844 P.2d 389 (1993)).

The reference to federal law remedies must be intended to expand upon the already mentioned remedies. However, beyond injunctive relief, compensatory damages, costs and attorney fees, nothing of substance is left but the punitive damages added to federal law in 1991.

Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 581-82 (hyperlinks added). “The Legislature clearly understood it was adopting exemplary damages as part of Washington’s antidiscrimination law when it amended RCW 49.60.030(2) in 1993 and 1995.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 582 (hyperlink added).

[2-6] RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE 1993 AMENDMENTS: “Counsel for Ms. Dailey argues the amendments to RCW 49.60.030(2) must be applied retroactively because they are remedial in nature.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 582.

∴ Concurring Court’s Analysis: “I disagree. Because the Legislature adopted a federal remedy, we are obliged to construe the federal remedy in accordance with Congressional intent as understood by the federal courts.” Id. at 582 (citing Xieng, 120 Wash.2d at 528-29, 844 P.2d 389).

“The United States Supreme Court in Landgraf determined the 1991 amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 providing for compensatory and punitive damages could not be retroactively applied. If Ms. Dailey may not recover exemplary damages under federal law, she may not recover exemplary damages under RCW 49.60.030(2), as amended.” Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 582-83.

[2-7] FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMANTS MAY RECOVER PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED; WA LEGISLATURE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD IT WAS ADOPTING PUNITIVE DAMAGES WHEN IT AMENDED RCW 49.60.030(2); AND PLAINTIFF CANNOT RETROACTIVELY APPLY PUNITIVE DAMAGES:

The concurring Court evaluated this case based on three categories and concluded as follows:

1. Regarding Federal Law:

As interpreted by the federal courts, successful federal civil rights claimants may recover exemplary damages under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended by the 1991 legislation, as a means of enforcing federal antidiscrimination law.

Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 580.

2. Regarding WA Law:

The Legislature clearly understood it was adopting exemplary damages as part of Washington’s antidiscrimination law when it amended RCW 49.60.030(2) in 1993 and 1995.

Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 582

3. Regarding Retroactive Application of 1993 Amendments:

The United States Supreme Court in Landgraf determined the 1991 amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 providing for compensatory and punitive damages could not be retroactively applied. If Ms. Dailey may not recover exemplary damages under federal law, she may not recover exemplary damages under RCW 49.60.030(2), as amended.

Dailey, 129 Wn.2d at 582-83.

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, consider contacting an experienced employment discrimination attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Washington Employment Law Digest or the author of this article. By reading this article, you agree to our Disclaimer / Terms-of-Use / Privacy Policy.

July 7, 2021October 20, 2024

Robel v. Roundup Corporation, 148 Wn.2d 35 (Wash 2002)

This is a case summary of Robel v. Roundup Corporation, 148 Wn.2d 35 (Wash 2002). Subjects include, but are not limited to the following:

» DISABILITY-BASED HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

» WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ANTI-RETALIATION STATUTE

» INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

» DEFAMATION

Advertisement

**Robel v. Roundup Corporation, 148 Wn.2d 35 (Wash 2002)**

case summarY – 22 Facts:

[1] This suit arises out of Linda Robel’s employment from May 31, 1995, to September 12, 1996, in the service deli at … [the] Fred Meyer store in Spokane.

[2] On July 14, 1996, Robel sustained a workplace injury and timely filed a workers’ compensation claim.

[3] In late July, Robel was given a light-duty assignment, “a four-hour shift” during which she stood “at a display table outside the deli area offering samples of food items to customers.”

[4] On August 1, 1996, as Robel worked at the display table, two deli workers “laughed” and “acted out a slip and fall,” as one of them yelled, “Oh, I hurt my back, L & I, L & I!”

[5] They “audibly called [Robel] a ‘bitc[-]’ and ‘cun[-].'”

[6] They also “told customers she had lied about her back and was being punished by Fred Meyer by ‘demoing’ pizzas.”

[7] In journal entries for August 2, 3, 10, and 11, Robel wrote that assistant deli manager Amy Smith and others made fun of her, laughed, pointed, and gave her “dirty looks.”

[8] Robel also noted that on August 13, Smith and other deli workers would “stare at [her], whisper out loud, & laugh, pretending to hurt their backs & laugh.”

[9] Robel reported the incidents to her union representative, … Banka.

[10] According to Robel’s journal, Banka came in on August 14, 1996, and set up a meeting with … Wissink, the store director, for Friday, August 16.

[11] At [a subsequent all-deli employee meeting, called by Wissink on August 19, 1996,] Wissink warned the employees that future harassment could result in termination.

[12] On August 22, 1996, deli workers “laughed and audibly admonished each other not to harass Robel.”

[13] On August 28 and 30, Robel noted in her journal that co-workers were talking about her and laughing at her, and she recorded that, on September 2, Smith and other workers “had a great time making fun of [her], calling [her] names[,] pretending to hurt their backs & yelling L & I.”

[14] On September 13, 1996, Robel secured a two-week work release from her doctor and gave it to Smith that same day.

[15] Before Robel left the deli, she overheard Smith comment to other deli employees, “Can you believe it, Linda’s gonna sit on her big ass and get paid.”

[16] Robel again contacted [her union rep], who in turn contacted Wissink on September 20, 1996.

[17] On September 24, Wissink telephoned Robel to confirm the allegations. Robel “told him about the C word and Bitc[-][,] the little plays they were doing about [her] back.”

[18] On September 28, 1996, Wissink terminated one employee.

[19] Robel never returned to work at Fred Meyer.

[20] On February 13, 1998, Robel filed suit against Fred Meyer, stating claims for disability discrimination …, retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim …, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation.

[21] The trial court denied Fred Meyer’s motion for summary judgment … [f]inding for Robel on all five causes of action[.]

[22] Fred Meyer appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment on all claims.

Robel v. Roundup Corporation, 148 Wn.2d 35 (Wash 2002) (internal citations omitted) (hyperlink added).

ISSUE #1: Does the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Chapter 49.60 RCW, support an employee’s disability based hostile work environment claim?

[1-1] WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION: Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, “It is an unfair practice for any employer to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment because of age, sex, marital status, race, creed, color, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability.” Robel v. Roundup Corporation, 148 Wn.2d 35 (Wash 2002) (citing RCW 49.60.180(3)) (alteration to the original).

[1-2] RULES OF CONSTRUCTION: To determine whether the Washington Law Against Discrimination “supports a disability claim based on hostile work environment, [courts] may look to federal cases construing analogous federal statutes.” Id. (citing Fahn v. Cowlitz County, 93 Wash.2d 368, 376, 610 P.2d 857 (1980), 621 P.2d 1293 (1980)).

[1-3] ISSUE OF FIRST IMPRESSION: In this case, the Court determined that whether the Washington Law Against Discrimination supported a disability based hostile work environment was an issue of first impression in the State.

It reasoned that “just as the federal cases extended the Title VII hostile work environment claim (and its standards of proof) to the ADA, we may extend the reasoning in Glasgow to disability claims.” Id. at 45 (hyperlinks added).

[1-4] WLAD SUPPORTS DISABILITY-BASED HOSITLE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS: The Court held that “the [Washington Law Against Discrimination] … supports a disability based hostile work environment claim.” Id. at 43.

ISSUE #2: Did the trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact support its conclusion of law that Fred Meyer discriminated against Robel based upon her physical disability?

[2-1] DISABILITY BASED HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT: In order to establish a disability based hostile work environment case, a plaintiff must prove “(1) that he or she was disabled within the meaning of the antidiscrimination statute[, WLAD], (2) that the harassment was unwelcome, (3) that it was because of the disability, (4) that it affected the terms and conditions of employment, and (5) that it was imputable to the employer.” Id. at 45.

[2-2] THE SECOND ELEMENT (UNWELCOME): To establish that the harassment was unwelcome, “the plaintiff must show that he or she ‘did not solicit or incite it’ and viewed it as ‘undesirable or offensive.'” Id. (citing Glasgow v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 406, 693, P.2d 708 (Wash. 1985)).

[2-3] THE THIRD ELEMENT (BECAUSE OF DISABILITY): To establish that the harassment was “because of disability,” requires “[t]hat the disability of the plaintiff-employee be the motivating factor for the unlawful discrimination.” Id. at 46 (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406, 693 P.2d 708)) (alteration to the original). This element requires a nexus between the specific harassing conduct and the particular injury or disability. Id.

[2-4] THE FOURTH ELEMENT (TERMS & CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT): To establish that the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, “the harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id. at (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406, 693 P.2d 708)) (alteration to the original).

“[A] satisfactory finding on this element should indicate “that the conduct or language complained of was so offensive or pervasive that it could reasonably be expected to alter the conditions of plaintiff’s employment.'” Id. (citing 6A WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CIVIL 330.23, at 240) (alteration to the original) (hyperlink added).

[2-5] THE FIFTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO EMPLOYER): To impute harassment to an employer, “the jury must find either that (1) an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participate[d] in the harassment or that (2) the employer … authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonably prompt adequate corrective action.” Id. at 47 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (alteration to the original).

[2-6] THE FIRST ELEMENT (DISABLED): In this case, neither party contested that Robel’s injury was a disability under RCW 49.60.180(3). Id. at 35. Therefore, the Court did not further define disabled within the meaning of the antidiscrimination statute. Id.

[2-7] THE SECOND ELEMENT (UNWELCOME): The Court found that no findings suggested that Robel solicited or incited the remarks made about her workplace injury. Id. at 45. That Robel viewed the employer’s conduct as undesirable and offensive was at least implicit in her reporting the conduct to Banka (her Union Representative). Id. at 45-46.

[2-8] THE THIRD ELEMENT (BECAUSE OF DISABILITY): The trial court found that the verbal and non-verbal harassment of Robel in the work setting after July 14, 1996, was directly or proximately related to her disability and/or Fred Meyer’s perception of Robel as disabled. See id. at 46. The Court, in the instant case, elected not to substitute their judgment for that of the trial court. Id.

[2-9] THE FOURTH ELEMENT (TERMS & CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT): The trial court found that Fred Meyer created a hostile and abusive work environment and that the environment was offensive to Robel. Id. at 46-47 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court, in the instant case, pointed to an additional trial court finding as follows: “Fred Meyer discriminated against Robel in the terms or conditions of employment when it participated in and/or failed to bring to an end … the verbal and non-verbal harassment of Robel in the work setting.” Id. at 47.

The Court found that this language echoed the “critical language from Glasgow and the pattern jury instruction”; it accepted the findings as “verities” and passed on “any reweighing of the evidence supporting them.” Id.

[2-10] THE FIFTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO EMPLOYER): The Court identified relevant trial court findings as follows:

[a] “Fred Meyer, through the acts of its managers, participated, authorized, knew and/or should have known of the verbal and non-verbal harassment of Robel in the work setting subsequent to July 14, 1996[;]”

[b] “Fred Meyer’s management personnel improperly participated in and/or allowed the verbal and non-verbal harassment in the work setting[;]”

[c] “deli manager Potts and assistant deli manager Smith were management personnel for purposes of employer liability[;]”

[d] “Fred Meyer’s remedial action … was not of such nature to have been reasonably calculated to end the harassment[;]”

[e] “[Fred Meyer’s] investigations and termination of [one co-worker] without further management corrections were inadequate[;]” and

[f] “the postinjury harassment was ‘imputed to Fred Meyer.'”

Id. at 48 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (lettered paragraphs added).

The Court found that these uncontested findings of fact satisfy both options derived from Glasgow. Id.

[2-11] COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED / TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT REINSTATED: The Court concluded “that the Court of Appeals erred when it ignored the trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact on the five essential elements of the claim.” Id. at 48. It then reversed “the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment in Robel’s favor.” Id.

ISSUE #3: Did the trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact support the conclusion that Fred Meyer, in violation of RCW 51.48.025(1), retaliated against Robel for filing a workers’ compensation claim?

[3-1] WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ANTI-RETALIATION STATUTE: The Washington Industrial Insurance Act “provides that no employer may discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed or communicated to the employer an intent to file a claim for compensation or exercises any rights provided under this title.” Id. at 48-49 (citing RCW 51.48.025(1)) (emphasis in original).

[3-2] FRAMING THE ISSUE: In this case, the Court framed the issue essentially as follows: Whether the Workers’ Compensation Anti-Retaliation Statute, RCW 51.48.025(1), applies to an employer “who has allegedly discriminated in some way, short of discharge, against an employee because she filed a workers’ compensation claim[?]” See id. at 50.

[3-3] ELEMENTS OF THE CLAIM: It then found that, “by analogy with Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 118 Wn.2d 46, 68, 821 P.2d 18 (1991), which required proof of a causal connection between the filing of a claim and the allegedly retaliatory termination, Robel was required to prove [1] that she had filed a claim, [2] that Fred Meyer thereafter discriminated against her in some way, and [3] that the claim and the discrimination were causally connected.” Id. at 50.

[3-4] FINDINGS OF FACT SATISFY THE ELEMENTS: The Court held that “because the findings of fact satisfy these elements and were not challenged on appeal, we reverse the Court of Appeals on the retaliation claim and reinstate the trial court’s judgment in Robel’s favor.” Id.

ISSUE #4: Did the Court of Appeals properly hold as a matter of law that Robel’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress should not go to the trier of fact?

[4-1] IIED ELEMENTS: To succeed on a claim for outrage–also known as intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)–“a plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and (3) severe emotional distress on the part of the plaintiff.” Id. at 51 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

[4-2] QUESTIONS FOR THE JURY: The three elements are fact questions for the jury, and the first element of the test goes to the jury only after the court determines “if reasonable minds could differ on whether the conduct was sufficiently extreme to result in liability.” Id.

[4-3] EXTREME & OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT: To establish the first IIED element, the plaintiff must prove “that the conduct was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Id. (citing Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612, 630, 782 P.2d 1002 (1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

[4-4] RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTIES (IIED): In an outrage claim “[t]he relationship between the parties is a significant factor in determining whether liability should be imposed.” Id. at 52 (citing Contreras v. Crown Zellerback Corp., 88 Wn.2d 735, 741, 565 P.2d 1173 (1977)).

“The Contreras court emphasized that ‘added impetus’ is given to an outrage claim ‘[w]hen one in a position of authority, actual or apparent, over another has allegedly made racial slurs and jokes and comments.” Robel, 148 Wn.2d at 52 (citing Contreras, 88 Wn.2d 735, 741, 565 P.2d 1173 (1977); see also White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So.2d 1205, 1210 (La. 1991) (stating that “plaintiff’s status as an employee may entitle him to a greater degree of protection from insult and outrage by a supervisor with authority over him than if her were a stranger”)).

[4-5] VICARIOUS LIABILITY: “Once an employee’s underlying tort is established, the employer will be held vicariously liable if ‘the employee was acting within the scope of his employment.'” Id. at 53 (citing Dickinson v. Edwards, 105 Wn.2d 457, 469, 716 P.2d 814 (1986)).

“An employer can defeat a claim of vicarious liability by showing that the employee’s conduct was (1) ‘intentional or criminal’ and (2) ‘outside the scope of employment.'” Id. (citing Niece v. Elmview Group Home, 131 Wn.2d 39, 56, 929 P.2d 420 (1997) (emphasis in original), quoted with approval in Snyder v. Med. Servs. Corp. of E. Wash., 145 Wn.2d 233, 242-43, 35 P.3d 1158 (2001)).

[4-6] SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT: “An employee’s conduct will be outside the scope of employment if it “is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time or space limits, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the master.'” Id. (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 228(2) (1958); see also RESTATEMENT, supra, § 228(1)).

[4-7] FIRST ELEMENT (EXTREME & OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT): “Robel was called in her workplace names so vulgar that they have acquired nicknames, such as ‘the C word,’ for example.” Id. at 52. (internal citation omitted) (emphasis in original).

[4-8] VICARIOUS LIABILITY: “Fred Meyer deli workers tormented Robel on company property during working hours, as they interacted with co-workers and customers and performed the duties they were hired to perform. Nothing in the record suggests that the abusive employees left their job stations or neglected their assigned duties to launch the verbal attacks on Robel.” Id. at 54.

[4-9] REASONABLE MINDS COULD CONCLUDE EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT: On the threshold question (extreme and outrageous conduct) the Court concluded that reasonable minds could conclude that, in light of the severity and context of the conduct, it was beyond all possible bounds of decency, atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. See id. at 51-52.

[4-10] FRED MEYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE: The Court also concluded that Fred Meyer was vicariously liable, “that reasonable minds could find the complained-of conduct outrageous, and that the uncontested findings satisfied the three elements of outrage.” Id. at 54-55.

[4-11] COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED / REINSTATED TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT FOR ROBEL ON IIED: The Court then reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment for Robel on her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 55. Because Robel was successful on this claim, the Court found it unnecessary to consider Robel’s companion claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Id.

ISSUE #5: Were the allegedly defamatory communications cited in the trial court’s findings capable of defamatory meaning?

[5-1] DEFAMATION: A defamation plaintiff must prove the following four essential elements: (1) falsity, (2) an unprivileged communication, (3) fault, and (4) damages. Id. at 55 (citing Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wn.2d 473, 486, 635 P.2d 1081 (1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124, 102 S.Ct. 2942, 73 L.Ed. 2d 1339 (1982)) (emphasis added).

[5-2] FALSITY: “Before the truth or falsity of an allegedly defamatory statement can be assessed, a plaintiff must prove that the words constituted a statement of fact, not an opinion. Because expressions of opinion are protected under the First Amendment, they are not actionable.” Id. (citing Camer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 45 Wn.App. 29, 39, 723 P.2d 1195 (1986) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis added).

“Whether the allegedly defamatory words were intended as a statement of fact or an expression of opinion is a threshold question of law for the court.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

[5-3] TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES: To determine whether words should be viewed as nonactionable opinions, the court considers the totality of the circumstances surrounding those statements. Id. at 56.

[5-4] DUNLAP 3-FACTOR TEST: To determine whether a statement is nonactionable, a court should consider at least (1) the medium and context in which the statement was published, (2) the audience to whom it was published, and (3) whether the statement implies undisclosed facts.” Id. (citing Dunlap v. Wayne, 105 Wn.2d 529, 539, 716 P.2d 842 (1986)).

[5-5] THE VULGARISMS (I.E., “BITC-,” “CUN-,” “FUC-ING BITC-,” “FUC-ING CUN-“) ALONG WITH THE WORD “IDIOT”: The Court concluded that these vulgarisms along with the word “idiot” were plainly abusive words, but they were not intended to be taken literally as statements of fact. Id. Thus, they did not pass the threshold question of law.

[5-6] THE WORDS “SNITCH,” “SQUEALER,” AND “LIAR”: The Court considered the totality of the circumstances and applied the Dunlap Three-Factor Test. It held as a matter of law that these words also constituted nonactionable opinions. Id. at 56.

Regarding the first Dunlap Factor (Medium & Context): the Court found that the oral statements were made in circumstances and places that invited exaggeration and personal opinion. Id.

Regarding the second Dunlap Factor (The Audience): the Court found that the employee audience (i.e., Fred Meyer co-workers and management personnel) was “prepared for mischaracterization and exaggeration” and would have registered the words, if at all, “as expressions of personal opinion, not as statements of fact.” Id. at 57. And customers hearing the words “would reasonably perceive that the speaker was an antagonistic or resentful co-worker.” Id.

Regarding the third Dunlap Factor (Whether the Words Implied Undisclosed Defamatory Facts): deli workers would have known the facts ostensibly underlying the words, and the words disclosed to customers (i.e., “that Robel was demoing pizzas because she had lied about her back”) “implies no undisclosed defamatory facts.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

[5-7] ALL OF THE UTTERANCES WERE NONACTIONABLE OPINIONS: The Court concluded that all of the utterances were nonactionable opinions and reaffirmed the reversal of the trial court’s judgment on Robel’s defamation claim. Id.

NOTABLES & IMPLICATIONS:

DISABILITY

(1) This case adds an additional initial element to the hostile work environment rule for cases based on disability: He or she must be disabled within the meaning of the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED)

(2) The standard for an outrage claim is very high (meaning that the conduct supporting the claim must be appallingly low). See id. at 51.

(3) Relationship Between Parties. In an outrage claim, “[t]he relationship between the parties is a significant factor in determining whether liability should be imposed.” Id. at 52 (citing Contreras v. Crown Zellerback Corp., 88 Wn.2d 735, 741, 565 P.2d 1173 (1977)).

“The Contreras court emphasized that ‘added impetus’ is given to an outrage claim ‘[w]hen one in a position of authority, actual or apparent, over another has allegedly made racial slurs and jokes and comments.” Id. (citing Contreras, 88 Wn.2d 735, 741, 565 P.2d 1173 (1977); see also White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So.2d 1205, 1210 (La. 1991) (stating that “plaintiff’s status as an employee may entitle him to a greater degree of protection from insult and outrage by a supervisor with authority over him than if her were a stranger”)).

PERSONAL JOURNALS / DIARIES

(4) In Washington State, an employee’s personal journal entries regarding discrimination at work might be allowed by the court to support a claim of unlawful employment discrimination. See, e.g., id. at 40-41.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

(5) Washington Law Against Discrimination prohibits sexual harassment in employment, with such claims being generally categorized as quid pro quo harassment claims or hostile work environment claims. See id. at 43 (citing DeWater v. State, 130 Wn.2d 128, 134-35, 921 P.2d 1059 (1996)) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

TITLE VII & WLAD

(6) “The [Washington Law Against Discrimination,] … which applies with equal force to sex based and disability based employment discrimination, is analogous to Title VII and the ADA.” Id. at 44.

(7) Although federal cases interpreting Title VII are not binding on the Court, they are instructive and supportive. See id. at 44.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

(8) Intentional or criminal conduct is not per se outside the cope of employment. Id. at 53.

(9) It is not the case that an employer will be vicariously liable only where it has specifically authorized an employee to act in an intentionally harmful or negligent manner. See id.

(10) An employer may not insulate itself from vicarious liability merely by adopting a general policy proscribing bad behavior that would otherwise be actionable. Id.

(11) The proper vicarious liability inquiry is whether the employee was fulfilling his or her job functions at the time he or she engaged in the injurious conduct. See id.

(12) When a servant steps aside from the master’s business in order to effect some purpose of his own, the master is not liable. Id. at 54 (citing Kuehn v. White, 24 Wn.App. 274, 277, 600 P.2d 679 (1979)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(13) Where an employee’s acts are directed toward personal sexual gratification, the employee’s conduct falls outside the scope of his or her employment. See id.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ANTI-RETALIATION STATUTE

(14) To establish a claim of unlawful workers’ compensation retaliation, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the plaintiff filed a claim, (2) that the employer thereafter discriminated against the plaintiff is some way, and (3) that the claim and the discrimination were causally connected. See id. at 50.

case summary – 7 Facts:

» MAJORITY OPINION: DOLLIVER, Justice; DURHAM, C.J., and SMITH, GUY and MADSEN, JJ., concur.

ISSUE #1 (Majority Opinion): Did the trial court err in granting Plaintiff’s motion, concluding RCW 49.60.030(2) both permitted punitive damages in an employment discrimination action and operated retrospectively?

» CONCURRING OPINION: TALMADGE, Justice (concurring); JOHNSON, ALEXANDER and SANDERS, JJ., concur.

ISSUE #2 (Concurring Opinion): Did “the Legislature intend[ ] by its 1993 amendments to RCW 49.60, our Law Against Discrimination, to incorporate the remedy of exemplary damages allowed in federal civil rights actions[ ]”?

LEARN MORE

case summarY – 22 Facts:

ISSUE #1: Does the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Chapter 49.60 RCW, support an employee’s disability based hostile work environment claim?

ISSUE #2: Did the trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact support its conclusion of law that Fred Meyer discriminated against Robel based upon her physical disability?

ISSUE #3: Did the trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact support the conclusion that Fred Meyer, in violation of RCW 51.48.025(1), retaliated against Robel for filing a workers’ compensation claim?

ISSUE #4: Did the Court of Appeals properly hold as a matter of law that Robel’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress should not go to the trier of fact?

ISSUE #5: Were the allegedly defamatory communications cited in the trial court’s findings capable of defamatory meaning?

NOTABLES & IMPLICATIONS:

LEARN MORE

**ISSUE #1 (Majority Opinion):** Did the trial court err in granting Plaintiff’s motion, concluding RCW 49.60.030(2) both permitted punitive damages in an employment discrimination action and operated retrospectively?

**ISSUE #2 (Concurring Opinion):** Did “the Legislature intend[ ] by its 1993 amendments to RCW 49.60, our Law Against Discrimination, to incorporate the remedy of exemplary damages allowed in federal civil rights actions[ ]”?