Imputed to Employer Archives - Washington Employment Law Digest

July 13, 2021October 20, 2024

Sangster v. Albertson’s Inc., 99 Wn.App. 156 (Div. 3 2000)

This is a case summary of Sangster v. Albertson’s Inc., 99 Wn.App. 156, 991 P.2d 674 (Div. 3 2000). Subjects include, but are not limited to the following:

» SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY SUPERVISOR

» IMPUTING HARASSMENT

» FARAGHER-ELLERTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

Sangster v. Albertson's Inc., 99 Wn.App. 156, 991 P.2d 674 (Div. 3 2000) — **Sangster v. Albertson’s Inc., 99 Wn.App. 156, 991 P.2d 674 (Div. 3 2000)**

case summarY – 12 Facts:

[1] In 1989, Brenda Sangster started working in the service deli Department of the Albertson’s store in Lewiston, Idaho.

[2] In December 1992, she was promoted to service deli manager in the Clarkston[, Washington] Albertson’s store.

[3] Approximately two and one-half years later, she resigned her position at the Clarkston store and returned to a nonmanager position at the Lewiston Albertson’s.

[4] During Ms. Sangster’s tenure as deli manager at the Clarkston Albertson’s, the store director was Terry Myers.

[5] Ms. Sangster claims that while she was an employee at the Clarkston Albertson’s store, she was the victim of Mr. Myers’ sexual harassment.

[6] In October 1996, she filed a sexual harassment action against Albertson’s and Mr. Myers.

[7] The type of conduct about which Ms. Sangster complains is summarized as follows:

[A] Ms. Sangster was constantly referred to as “honey,” “sweety,” and “little girl” by Mr. Myers.

[B] Mr. Myers made sexually suggestive and demeaning comments to Ms. Sangster regarding shorts. Regarding this incident, Ms. Sangster asked Mr. Myers if it was possible for the deli department employees to wear shorts at the outdoor Albertson’s store promotions. Mr. Myers told Ms. Sangster that this was okay if she bought or wore a size too small for her.

[C] Ms. Sangster was present at a managers’ meeting concerning Vicki Fuson as employee of the month. At the meeting, Mr. Myers nominated Ms. Fuson as the employee of the month since she looked great in a bathing suit and made a gesture regarding Ms. Fuson’s breasts.

[D] There were numerous statements and comments by Mr. Myers to Ms. Sangster in which he stated to Ms. Sangster, “What’s the matter — didn’t you get any last night?” This particular comment was not limited to one incident but was repeatedly made by Mr. Myers to Ms. Sangster in the presence of co-workers and at the Thursday managers’ meeting in front of other department managers.

[E] On one occasion, a friend dropped a dress off at the store for Ms. Sangster. Mr. Myers, in the presence of other employees, asked Ms. Sangster to try the dress on in front of them.

[F] Mr. Myers made the statement to Ms. Sangster in the service deli department while looking at a display, “Damn that makes my titt[-] hard.”

[G] At one of the managers’ meetings, Mr. Myers made the comment regarding hot mustard, “Try it, it will make your pecke[-] stand out.”

[H] Mr. Myers made a comment regarding Ms. Sangster’s flying lessons. He remarked that she should join his mile high club. When she asked what that was, Mr. Myers turned and walked away laughing. Ms. Sangster felt that this comment was of a sexual nature and carried sexual overtones.

[I] Mr. Myers made comments about the problem with dating younger men. He stated that Ms. Sangster should go out with older men like himself. In this same conversation, Mr. Myers commented to Ms. Sangster that she should travel with him.

[J] Mr. Myers made other vulgar and demeaning sexual comments to Ms. Sangster at the weekly managers’ meetings.

[K] Mr. Myers stated that he noticed Ms. Sangster’s performance as service deli manager began to slip the four to six months Before she left the Clarkston store in July 1995.

[8] Albertson’s and Mr. Myers filed a motion for summary judgment.

[9] The court found that these actions did not rise to the level of sexual harassment and, accordingly, granted Albertson’s and Mr. Myers’ motion for summary judgment.

[10] Ms. Sangster filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to CR 59 and submitted a new affidavit containing additional information.

[11] The court denied the motion for reconsideration, stating “[t]he new affidavit is an attempt to bring in new evidence[.]”

[12] The court further ruled that “the requirements of CR 59 have not been satisfied.” Ms. Sangster appeals.

Sangster v. Albertson’s Inc., 99 Wn.App. 156, 991 P.2d 674 (Div. 3 2000) (hyperlinks added).

ISSUE #1: Did the trial court err in granting Albertson’s and Mr. Meyers’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Sangster’s sexual harassment claim?

[1-1] SEXUAL HARASSMENT GENERALLY: “Washington’s law against discrimination [(WLAD)], RCW 49.60, protects employees from sexual harassment.” Sangster v. Albertson’s Inc., 99 Wn.App. 156, 161, 991 P.2d 674 (Div. 3 2000) (citing Coville v. Cobarc Servs., Inc., 73 Wash.App. 433, 438, 869 P.2d 1103 (1994) (citing Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 103 Wash.2d 401, 405, 693 P.2d 708 (1985))) (hyperlink added).

[1-2] THE WLAD SEXUAL HARASSMENT PROVISION (RCW 49.60.180(3)): “The statute provides in relevant part, ‘[i]t is an unfair practice for any employer … [t]o 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[.]'” Id. (citing RCW 49.60.180(3)) (alteration in original).

[1-3] TWO TYPES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT (QUID PRO QUO & HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT): “Sexual harassment claims are characterized as either ‘quid pro quo harassment’ or ‘hostile work environment’ claims.” Id. (citing DeWater v. State, 130 Wash.2d 128, 134, 921 P.2d 1059 (1996) (quoting Payne v. Children’s Home Soc’y of Wash., Inc., 77 Wash.App. 507, 511 n. 2, 892 P.2d 1102 (1995))) (internal quotation marks omitted).

[1-4] HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT BASED ON SEX (THE PRIMA FACIE CASE): “To establish a prima facie case for a hostile work environment claim, the employee must demonstrate that there was[:]

(1) offensive, unwelcome contact that

(2) occurred because of sex or gender,

(3) affected the terms or conditions of employment, and

(4) can be imputed to the employer.

Id. (citing Doe v. Department of Transp., 85 Wash.App. 143, 148, 931 P.2d 196 (1997) (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406-07, 693 P.2d 708); Coville, 73 Wash.App. at 438, 869 P.2d 1103)) (paragraph formatting added).

[1-5] HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT — 2ND ELEMENT (OCCURRED BECAUSE OF SEX/GENDER): In the instant case, “[the plaintiff] must prove that she would not have been singled out and caused to suffer the harassment had she been male.” Id. (citing Doe, 85 Wash.App. at 148, 931 P.2d 196). Accordingly, “[t]o defeat a summary judgment motion, [the plaintiff] must produce competent evidence that supports a reasonable inference that [the plaintiff’s] gender was the motivating factor for . . . [the] harassing conduct.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

[1-6] HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT — 3RD ELEMENT (AFFECTED THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT): “Casual, isolated or trivial manifestations of a discriminatory environment do not affect the terms or conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate the law.” Id. at 162.

PERVASIVENESS: “The harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id. at 162-63 (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406, 693 P.2d 708).

TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES: “Whether the harassment is such that it creates an abusive working environment may be determined by examining the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 163 (citing Payne, 77 Wash.App. at 515, 892 P.2d 1102 (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406-07, 693 P.2d 708)).

CONSIDERATIONS: “[The court] . . . consider[s] the ‘frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.'” Id. (citing Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)).

CASUAL, ISOLATED, OR TRIVIAL INCIDENTS NOT ENOUGH: “‘Casual, isolated or trivial’ incidents are not actionable.” Id. (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406, 693 P.2d 708; see also Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 2283, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the ‘terms and conditions of employment’ “)).

[1-7] HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT — 4TH ELEMENT (CAN BE IMPUTED TO EMPLOYER): “[A] coemployee’s sexual harassment can be imputed to an employer if that coemployee is a manager who personally participates in the harassment.” Id. (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 407, 693 P.2d 708). “The Glasgow formulation of the elements of sexual harassment is taken from federal cases interpreting Title VII.” Id. at 164 (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406-07, 693 P.2d 708) (hyperlink added).

[1-8] HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT — 4TH ELEMENT (QUALIFIED IMPUTATION BASED UPON SUPERVISOR MISCONDUCT): THE FARAGHER-ELLERTH TEST: “Since Glasgow was decided, several federal cases have held that there should not be automatic imputation where the harasser is a supervisor at the employment site but does not occupy an upper level management position.” Sangster, 99 Wn.App. at 164 (citing Perry v. Harris Chernin, Inc., 126 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir.1997); Torres v. Pisano, 116 F.3d 625 (2nd Cir.1997); Andrade v. Mayfair Mgt., Inc., 88 F.3d 258 (4th Cir.1996)).

“In response to those cases, the United States Supreme Court clarified federal law in Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 2270, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998) and Faragher [v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775,] 118 S.Ct. … [2275,] 2292-93[, 2283, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998).]” Sangster, 99 Wn.App. at 164 (emphasis added). Accordingly, “[t]he court established [the] [Faragher-Ellerth] test for determining whether an employer is vicariously liable for a hostile work environment created by a supervisor.” Id. (emphasis added).

THE FARAGHER-ELLERTH TEST: The Faragher-Ellerth test “stated: ‘An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee.'” Id. (citing Burlington, 118 S.Ct. at 2261).

THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: “To prevent this rule from imposing automatic liability and to encourage employers to adopt anti-harassment policies, the court provided employers with an affirmative defense that they could assert to avoid vicarious liability for their supervisor’s misconduct:”

When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence, see F. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(c).”

Sangster, 99 Wn.App. at 164-65 (emphasis added).

[1-9] FARAGHER-ELLERTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (THE EMPLOYERS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SUPERVISOR-BASED VICARIOUS LIABILITY): “The [Faragher-Ellerth affirmative] defense comprises two necessary elements:

(a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and

(b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.”

Id. at 165 (paragraph formatting added).

CAVEAT: This test is only applicable when no tangible employment action is taken by the employer against the employee.

[1-10] SUMMARY: SUPERVISOR-BASED VICARIOUS LIABILITY: “[I]f the harassment is actionable and the harasser has supervisory authority over the victim, the presumption is that the employer is vicariously liable for the harassment.” Id. “This presumption may be overcome only if the alleged harassment has not resulted in a tangible employment action, and then only if the employer can prove both elements of the affirmative defense.” Id.

[1-11] HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT — 1ST ELEMENT (OFFENSIVE & UNWELCOME CONDUCT): In this case, the Court found that “[t]he parties agree[d] that the conduct was offensive and unwelcome.” Id. at 161. Thus, the Plaintiff “fulfill[ed] the first element of [her] prima facie case.” Id.

[1-12] HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT — 2ND ELEMENT (OCCURRED BECAUSE OF SEX/GENDER): Next, the Court initially determined that “[s]everal of the incidents Ms. Sangster lists as sexually harassing do not fulfill this element because they were comments made to a group of both males and females and were not motivated by Ms. Sangster’s sex.” Id. at 162. The Court reasoned:

General comments Mr. Myers made at the managers’ meetings like, ‘[t]ry it, it will make your peck[-] stand out,’ or commenting on how a female employee should be employee of the month because she looked good in a swimming suit were not directed at Ms. Sangster and were not motivated by her gender. Also, the comment, ‘[d]amn that makes my titt[-] hard,’ was heard by several other people and was not specifically directed at Ms. Sangster.

Id. (alterations in original).

However, the Court subsequently found that “[t]he remaining incidents appear to have been motivated by Ms. Sangster’s gender[:]

[A] Mr. Myers suggesting that Ms. Sangster order her shorts one size smaller, or try on a dress in front of him, implies that he wanted to look at her in tight shorts or undressed.

[B] Mr. Myers asking Ms. Sangster, “[w]hat’s the matter – didn’t you get any last night?” or remarking that she should join his mile high club, could have been made to either male or female, but were inappropriate comments about her sex life.

[C] Also, Mr. Myers’ comments that Ms. Sangster should go for older men like himself and she could travel with him implied that he wanted to have a relationship with her.

[D] Mr. Myers’ use of the terms, “honey,” “sweety,” and “little girl” in addressing Ms. Sangster and other female employees was definitely based on gender.

The sexual nature of these incidents supports a reasonable inference that the conduct occurred because she was female.

Id.

[1-13] HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 3RD ELEMENT (AFFECTED THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT): The Court first considered the employer’s arguments:

Albertson’s argues that the alleged sexual harassment was only part of Ms. Sangster’s discontent with her job. Further, Albertson’s minimized the sexual harassment, characterizing it as casual or trivial. Albertson’s maintains that it is not clear that the harassment, without Ms. Sangster’s other problems at the store, was sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment.

Id. at 163, 991 P.2d 674. However, it dismissed these arguments finding in favor of the Plaintiff concerning the third element:

[T]he evidence is sufficient to create an issue of fact because reasonable persons could reach different conclusions as to whether the harassment altered the conditions of employment. Ms. Sangster has established the third element of her prima facie case.

Id.

[1-14] HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 4TH ELEMENT (CAN BE IMPUTED TO EMPLOYER): This was the main issue on appeal. The Court initially considered the following facts regarding the fourth element:

[a] “Ms. Sangster’s complaints about sexual harassment cover a period of time exceeding two and one-half years.”

[b] “During that time, Albertson’s had in effect a policy prohibiting sexual harassment. This policy was stated in its employee handbook which Ms. Sangster was required periodically to read. It stated:

Employees who have been led to believe that promotions, increases in wages, continued employment or any terms of employment are conditioned on sexual favors, or who feel that they have been subject to any type of sexually offensive work environment or incidents of retaliation, must immediately contact the hotline number 1-800-841-6371. You need not identify yourself to report improper activities via the hotline.

[c] “This policy was effectuated by the hotline number, periodic distribution of notices to each store employee, and special training sessions for store directors.”

[d] “Ms. Sangster received a notice from Albertson’s informing her that all employees must ‘comply with our policy prohibiting sexual harassment.’ “

[e] “The notice further instructed employees that if they were aware of supervisors or employees who have violated the policy, they “should immediately report such information to our General Office in Boise via our toll-free Hotline number.”

[f] “Ms. Sangster never used the hotline to report the sexual harassment.”

[g] “She did not contact Albertson’s about the sexual harassment until after she announced she was stepping down as the service deli manager at Clarkston.”

[h] “After she contacted Albertson’s, she was interviewed by a member of its senior management. Thereafter, Albertson’s investigated Ms. Sangster’s claims.”

[i] “Although the investigation failed to substantiate her claims, Albertson’s counseled Mr. Myers that no sexual harassment could be tolerated.”

[j] “There is no evidence that Ms. Sangster was subject to any sexual harassment or retaliation after she made her complaint.”

Id. at 165-66.

The Court then found as follows:

In this case, there is evidence that the employer adopted a policy prohibiting sexual harassment. There is also evidence that the employee did not timely report the harassment to her employer as required by its policy. There is a factual basis for the argument that had she done so, the damages to her and the liability to her employer may have been eliminated or limited by its response to her complaints. Nevertheless, under a rule that imputes automatic liability to an employer for the conduct of a manager, Albertson’s would be automatically liable for Mr. Myers’ conduct.

Id. at 166.

[1-15] GLASGOW IS NOT CONTROLLING: The Court then considered whether the Glasgow case was controlling and noted the following:

♦ Glasgow “does not discuss the effect of failure to use an anti-sexual harassment complaint procedure.”

♦ “There is no evidence that the Glasgow employer had such a procedure.”

♦ “[I]n describing the four elements of sexual harassment, the court stated what ‘an employee must prove.”

♦ “It did not attempt to articulate defenses which may have been available to the employer.”

Sangster, 99 Wn.App. at 166-67 (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court concluded that Glasgow was not controlling in the instant case.

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

[1-16] EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM UNDER RCW 49.60.180 (REVERSED & REMANDED): The Court held as follows:

Viewed in the light most favorable to Ms. Sangster, as the nonmoving party, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a claim of sexual harassment under RCW 49.60.180.

Albertson’s and Mr. Myers should not have been granted summary judgment. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mr. Myers sexually harassed Ms. Sangster and whether such conduct created a hostile work environment.

If these issues should be resolved against Albertson’s, it would be liable for Mr. Myers’ conduct, unless it prevails on the affirmative defense described in Burlington and Faragher.

Sangster, 99 Wn.App. at 167 (hyperlink and paragraph formatting added). As a result, the Court reversed the trial court decision and remanded for trial.

NOTABLES & IMPLICATIONS:

POLICY BEHIND THE FARAGHER-ELLERTH DEFENSE

(1) POLICY: “In adopting an affirmative defense limiting employer liability, the Burlington court stated it was consistent with ‘Title VII’s purpose to the extent it would encourage the creation and use of anti-harassment policies and grievance procedures.’ ” Sangster, 99 Wn.App. at 166 (citing Burlington, 118 S.Ct. at 2261).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT & WLAD

(2) DEFEATING SUMMARY JUDGMENT: “To defeat summary judgment, the employee must establish specific and material facts to support each element of her prima facie case.” Id. at 160 (citing Marquis, 130 Wash.2d at 105, 922 P.2d 43; Kahn v. Salerno, 90 Wash.App. 110, 117, 951 P.2d 321, review denied, 136 Wash.2d 1016, 966 P.2d 1277 (1998)).

(3) INQUIRY SCOPE: “When reviewing an order of summary judgment, we engage in the same inquiry as the trial court.” Id. at 160 (citing Honey v. Davis, 131 Wash.2d 212, 217, 930 P.2d 908, 937 P.2d 1052 (1997)).

(4) MATERIAL FACT: “A material fact is one upon which the outcome of the litigation depends.” Id. at 160 (citing Greater Harbor 2000 v. City of Seattle, 132 Wash.2d 267, 279, 937 P.2d 1082 (1997)).

(5) STANDARD: “Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. at 160 (citing CR 56(c); Hash v. Children’s Orthopedic Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 110 Wash.2d 912, 915, 757 P.2d 507 (1988)).

(6) STATEMENTS (OPINIONS & CONCLUSORY DECLARATIONS): “[I]n order for a plaintiff alleging discrimination in the workplace to overcome a motion for summary judgment, the worker must do more than express an opinion or make conclusory statements.” Id. at 160 (citing Marquis v. City of Spokane, 130 Wash.2d 97, 105, 922 P.2d 43 (1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(7) THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ADMONITION: “Summary judgment should rarely be granted in employment discrimination cases.” Id. at 160 (citing Johnson v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 80 Wash.App. 212, 226, 907 P.2d 1223 (1996)).

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 11, 2021October 20, 2024

Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC, 178 Wn.App. 734 (Div. 2 2013)

This is a case summary of Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC, 178 Wn.App. 734 (Div. 2 2013). Subjects include, but are not limited to, the following:

» DIRECT EVIDENCE TEST

» DISPARATE TREATMENT

» HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

» UNLAWFUL RETALIATION

Advertisement

Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC, 178 Wn.App 734 (Div. 2 2013) — **Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC, 178 Wn.App. 734 (Div. 2 2013)**

case summarY – 5 Facts:

[1] Joseph Alonso sued his employer, Qwest Communications Company LLC, and his supervisor for discrimination [based on his combat veteran, disabled person, and Mexican-American statuses.]

[2] [T]he superior court granted Qwest summary judgment dismissal of Alonso’s complaint.

[3] Alonso appeals, arguing that he provided sufficient evidence to establish prima facie discrimination claims for disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and unlawful retaliation.

[4] [The Court held] that Alonso established prima facie disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims [and reversed] the superior court’s summary judgment dismissal on those matters.

[5] [The Court held] that Alonso failed to establish a prima facie retaliation case … [and affirmed] the superior court’s summary judgment dismissal of that claim.

Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC, 178 Wn.App. 734 (Div. 2 2013).

ISSUE #1: Did Alonso sufficiently establish a prima facie disparate treatment case under the direct evidence test?

[1-1] DISPARATE TREATMENT: Disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that “occurs when an employer treats some people less favorably than others because of race, color, religion, sex, or other protected status.” Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC, 178 Wn.App. 734, 743 (Div. 2 2013) (citing Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co., 162 Wn.2d 340, 354 n. 7, 172 P.3d 688 (2007)).

“To establish a prima facie disparate treatment discrimination case, a plaintiff must show that his employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of their protected status.” Id. (citing Johnson v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 80 Wn.App. 212, 226, 907 P.2d 1223 (1996)).

[1-2] PRIMA FACIE TEST (2 OPTIONS): “A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by either[:]

[1.] offering direct evidence of an employer’s discriminatory intent, or …

[2.] satisfying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test that gives rise to an inference of discrimination.

Id. at 743-44 (citing Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483, 491, 859 P.2d 26, 865 P.2d 507 (1993)) (emphasis and paragraph formatting added).

[1-3] DIRECT EVIDENCE TEST (2 REQUIREMENTS): “[A] plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by providing direct evidence that[:]

(1) the defendant employer acted with a discriminatory motive and

(2) the discriminatory motivation was a significant or substantial factor in an employment decision.

Id. at 744 (citing Kastanis, 122 Wn.2d at 491) (paragraph formatting added).

[1-4] EMPLOYER’S DISCRIMINATORY REMARKS GENERALLY CONSIDERED DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION: “We generally consider an employer’s discriminatory remarks to be direct evidence of discrimination.” Id. (referencing Johnson v. Express Rent & Own, Inc., 113 Wn.App. 858, 862-63, 56 P.3d 567 (2002) (“reversing summary judgment based on supervisor’s ageist comments that plaintiff did not fit company’s image of a youthful, fit, ‘GQ’ looking mold” )).

[1-5] SIGNIFICANT OR SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN AN EMPLOYMENT DECISION: ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION: The plaintiff-employee “must next [establish that] … the discriminatory motive was a significant or substantial factor in an employment decision relating to … [plaintiff].” Id. at 746 (referencing Kastanis, 122 Wn.2d at 491).

Adverse Employment Action: “An adverse employment action involves a change in employment conditions that is more than an inconvenience or alteration of one’s job responsibilities, such as reducing an employee’s workload and pay.” Id. (citing Campbell v. State, 129 Wn.App. 10, 22, 118 P.3d 888 (2005), review denied, 157 Wn.2d 1002 (2006)).

Demotion, Adverse Transfer, and Hostile Work Environment: “A demotion or adverse transfer, or a hostile work environment, may also amount to an adverse employment action.” Id. (citing Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wn.App. 454, 465, 98 P.3d 827 (2004), review denied, 154 Wn.2d 1007 (2005)).

[1-6] ALONSO’S DIRECT EVIDENCE TEST: “To satisfy the direct evidence test, Alonso must show that Qwest acted with discriminatory motive in taking an adverse employment action against him based on his protected status as either a veteran, Mexican-American, or disabled person.” Id. at 744 (internal citations omitted).

[1-7] EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATORY MOTIVE (VETERAN STATUS):

In this case:

(a) Alonso recounted that Martinez “stated hatred of disabled combat veterans: ‘I will tell you what I hate[:] people that served in the first Gulf War for five days and claim a disability.’ “

(b) “the record demonstrates that Alonso was the only disabled Gulf War combat veteran at Qwest and that he claimed a 40 percent combat disability stemming from his service.”

(c) “Martinez knew of Alonso’s combat veteran status and, according to Alonso, even ‘stated that he hated the fact that I was receiving disability pay.’ “

Id. at 745 (alteration in original) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the Court found that “Martinez openly stated that he hated disabled Gulf War combat veterans and specifically that he hated that Alonso was disabled and receiving disability pay.” Id.

[1-8] EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATORY MOTIVE (NATIONAL ORIGIN & SPEECH IMPEDIMENT):

In this case:

(a) “… Alonso produced evidence that Martinez referred to Mexicans as ‘Spics’ and allowed others to use the term[ ]”;

(b) “[e]mployees including Martinez openly mocked Alonso’s speech impediment and accent;”

(d) “contrasted themselves to Alonso because they ‘spoke correct English,’ unlike him.”

Id. (internal citations omitted). “This open mocking based on Alonso’s national origin and speech impediment constitutes further direct evidence of discriminative intent, specifically relating to Alonso’s protected disability and national origin statuses.” Id.

[1-9] SIGNIFICANT OR SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN EMPLOYMENT DECISION (EVIDENCE OF ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION): In this case, Alonso claimed that he suffered adverse action through both adverse transfer and hostile work environment.

Adverse Transfer: Alonso claimed that he experienced an adverse transfer causing him to lose certain benefits including a newer van, cellular phone, and other preferences regarding equipment. Id. at 746.

Due to conflicting evidence, the Court raised and dismissed the rule in O’Neal v. City of Chicago, 392 F.3d 909, 912 (7th Cir. 2004), essentially establishing that loss of benefits do not amount to an adverse employment action when those benefits were associated with the position from which the plaintiff transferred. See id. at 746.

The Court viewed the evidence in a light most favorable to Alonso and held that his “benefits” were not tied to the position from which he transferred, and, thus, a reasonable juror could conclude that he suffered an adverse employment action when he transferred from his original position and was forced to give up those “benefits.” Id. at 747

Hostile Work Environment: Alonso also argued that he experienced adverse action in that he “suffered from a negative employment decision–being subjected to an increasingly hostile work environment as the subject of harassment targeting his protected statuses.” Id. at 747.

The Court considered derogatory comments made by Martinez and other employees, as described above, and it also considered the following additional comments allegedly made by Martinez regarding Alonso’s veteran status and PTSD: “[A]re you crazy or something?” and “[D]id you know Vietnam was over in 1978?” Id. at 748 (internal citations omitted).

“Viewed in a light most favorable to Alonso, the evidence showed … [:]

[a] Martinez and other employees openly bullied and condoned the bullying of Alonso because of his accent stemming from his Mexican-American heritage and speech impediment disability, as well as his disabled veteran status[ ] [;]

[b] [t]he bullying was so pervasive that other employees noticed and sympathized with Alonso;

[c] one co-worker opined that Alonso’s treatment was so bad that ‘[i]t was evident in the way that Ben Martinez treated Joseph Alonso that he did not like him and that he was trying to make Joseph’s working conditions so poor that Joseph would quit.’

Id. (internal citations omitted) (one alteration in original). “Because of the severity of this unbridled bullying and harassment, this hostile work environment amounted to an adverse employment action.” Id.

[1-10] ALONSO ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE DISPARATE TREATMENT CASE UNDER DIRECT EVIDENCE TEST: The Court held that “Alonso sufficiently established a prima facie disparate treatment case under the direct evidence test.” Id.

It further held that “Alonso produced direct evidence of (1) Martinez’s discriminatory motive–his hatred toward Alonso as a disabled Gulf War veteran with a speech impediment and (2) how he suffered adverse employment decisions–loss of his newer van and cell phone, and an increasingly hostile work environment laden with bullying and mockery of his Mexican-American heritage and disabilities.” Id

ISSUE #2: Did Alonso establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim?

[2-1] HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT: “To establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim, the plaintiff must allege facts proving that[:]

(1) the harassment was unwelcome,

(2) the harassment was because the plaintiff was a member of a protected class,

(3) the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, and

(4) the harassment is imputable to the employer.

Id. at 749 (citing Loeffelholz v. Univ. of Wash., 175 Wn.2d 264, 275, 285 P.3d 854 (2012)) (paragraph formatting added).

Actionable Harassment: “Harassment is actionable only if it is sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id. (citing Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d 256, 261, 103 P.3d 729 (2004)).

[2-2] HARASSMENT BECAUSE OF PROTECTED CLASS (2ND ELEMENT): To establish the 2nd element of a hostile work environment claim–that the harassment was because the plaintiff was a member of a protected class–“a plaintiff need only produce evidence that supports a reasonable inference that his protected class status was the motivating factor for the harassing conduct.” Id. at 749 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

[2-3] HARASSMENT AFFECTED TERMS & CONDITIONS (3RD ELEMENT): “To determine whether conduct was severe or pervasive enough to affect the terms and conditions of employment…[courts] look at the totality of the circumstances, including the frequency and severity of harassing conduct, whether it was physically threatening or humiliating, or merely an offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interfered with the employee’s work performance.” Id. at 751 (citing Washington v. Boeing Co., 105 Wn.App. 1, 10, 119 P.3d 1041 (2000)).

“Whether offensive comments affect the conditions of employment is a factual question.” Id. (referencing Davis v. W. One Auto. Grp., 140 Wn.App. 449, 457, 166 P.3d 807 (2007), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1040 (2008)). However, “causal, isolated, or trivial manifestations of a discriminatory environment do not affect the terms or conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate the law.” Id. (citing Washington, 105 Wn.App. at 10).

[2-4] HARASSMENT IMPUTABLE TO EMPLOYER (4TH ELEMENT): “Harassment is imputed to an employer when an owner, manager, partner, or corporate officer personally participates in the harassment.” Id. at 754 (citing Glasgow v. Ga.-Pac. Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 407, 693 P.2d 708 (1985)). “Managers are those whom the employer has given authority and power to affect the hours, wages, and working conditions of the employer’s workers.” Id. (citing Robel v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wn.2d 35, 48 n. 5, 59 P.3d 611 (2002)).

[2-5] UNWELCOME (1ST ELEMENT): The Court found that it was undisputed between the parties that Alonso did not welcome any hostility or harassment. Id. at 749.

[2-6] HARASSMENT BECAUSE OF PROTECTED CLASS (2ND ELEMENT): The Court considered Alonso’s offered evidence regarding military status (Martinez expressed hatred that Alonso was a disabled Gulf War combat vet and he compared his vet status to Alonso’s); regarding race (Martinez and others subjected Alonso to racially derogatory language (established above)); and regarding disability (he was a victim of open mocking for his speech impediment (established above)). See id. at 749-50.

Accordingly, the court determined that Alonso satisfied this element in establishing a prima facie hostile work environment claim. See id. at 750-51.

[2-7] HARASSMENT AFFECTED TERMS & CONDITIONS (3RD ELEMENT): The Court considered the evidence referenced under element 2 above and also considered that “Alonso visited a psychiatric emergency room in response to the ‘great stress at work’ and an upsurge in PTSD symptoms.” Id. at 752.

The Court held that Alonso “sufficiently demonstrated that the alleged harassment affected the terms and conditions of his employment.” Id.

[2-8] HARASSMENT IMPUTABLE TO EMPLOYER (4TH ELEMENT): Alonso’s supervisor, Martinez, set his crew’s hours, managed how employees were to spend their time on projects, controlled overtime, and controlled placement on out-of-town projects. See id. at 752-53.

Thus, Martinez qualified as a manager for purposes of summary judgment, because he had authority to affect employee’s hours, wages (via delegating overtime) and working conditions. See id. The Court also found that Martinez participated in some of the harassment as described above. Id. at 753.

Alonso established the harassment is imputable to the employer through supervisor Martinez. Id.

[2-9] ALONSO ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIM (REVERSED): The Court held both that Alonso established a prima facie hostile work environment claim and that the superior court erred in granting Qwest’s summary judgment motion on this issue. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of his hostile work environment claim. Id.

ISSUE #3: Did the superior court err in dismissing Alonso’s retaliation claim?

[3-1] UNLAWFUL RETALIATION: “The WLAD prohibits retaliation against a party asserting a claim based on a perceived violation of his civil rights or participating in an investigation into alleged workplace discrimination.” Id. at 753 (citing RCW 49.60.210).

PRIMA FACIE CASE. “To establish a prima facie retaliation case, a plaintiff must show that[:]

(1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity,

(2) his employer took an adverse employment action against him, and

(3) there is a causal link between the activity and the adverse action.”

Id. at 753-54 (citing Short v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 169 Wn.App. 188, 205, 279 P.3d 902 (2012)) (paragraph formatting added).

[3-2] PROTECTED ACTIVITY: “An employee engages in WLAD-protected activity when he opposes employment practices forbidden by antidiscrimination law or other practices that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory.” Id. at 754 (citing Short, 169 Wn.App. at 205).

[3-3] COMPLAINTS MUST REFERENCE PLAINTIFF’S PROTECTED STATUS: “A general complaint about an employer’s unfair conduct does not rise to the level of protected activity in a discrimination action under WLAD absent some reference to the plaintiff’s protected status.” Id. (referencing Graves v. Dep’t of Game, 76 Wn.App. 705, 712, 887 P.2d 424 (1994)).

[3-4] PROTECTED ACTIVITY (1ST ELEMENT): The Court initially evaluated whether Alonso met the first element of an unlawful retaliation claim — that he participated in protected activity.

Here, Alonso used a company hotline to make a general complaint about corruption, mistreatment, and vulgar language against both his supervisor (Martinez) and another employee. Id. at 754. However, Alonso “did not express that his complaints were in response to harassment based on any protected status.” Id.

Thus, the Court held that Alonso did not establish the first element, because he did not phone the hotline to report discrimination against him based on a protected class. Id.

[3-5] ALONSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE RETALIATION CASE (TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED): The Court held that Alonso failed to sufficiently establish a prima facie retaliation case, because he did not demonstrate that he engaged in statutorily protected activity. See id. at 754. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of his unlawful retaliation claim. Id. at 754-55.

NOTABLES & IMPLICATIONS:

EMPLOYEE’S ALLEGED HUMILIATION & SELF-DIAGNOSED MENTAL SICKENESS RAISED INFERENCE THAT CONDITION RESULTED FROM HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

(1) “Whether offensive comments affect the conditions of employment is a factual question.” Id. at 751 (referencing Davis v. W. One Auto. Grp., 140 Wn.App. 449, 457, 166 P.3d 807 (2007) (“holding that employee’s alleged humiliation and self-diagnosed mental sickness from ‘racially charged’ workplace comments raised inference that condition resulted from hostile work environment”), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1040 (2008)) (emphasis added).

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (IMPUTABLE TO EMPLOYER) — ASSIGNING OVERTIME

(3) A supervisor/manager may have authority to affect an employee’s wages if the supervisor/manager had the ability to determine who could earn overtime. See id. at 752 (referencing Robel v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wn.2d 35, 48 n. 5, 59 P.3d 611 (2002)).

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT: TWO COMMENTS MAY BE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT REASONABLE INFERENCE THAT PROTECTED CLASS STATUS WAS MOTIVATING FACTOR

(4) Just two comments may be enough to support a reasonable inference that an employee’s protected class status was the motivating factor for harassing conduct. See id. at 749-50 (supervisor openly expressed he hated that plaintiff was a disabled Gulf War combat veteran and compared his own veteran status to plaintiff’s).

INDIRECT DEROGATORY RACIALLY CHARGED LANGUAGE MAY BE ACTIONABLE

(5) “[A] defendant need not levy derogatory racially charged language directly at the plaintiff to subject the plaintiff to a hostile work environment and survive summary judgment.” See Davis v. W. One Auto. Grp., 140 Wn.App. 449, 457, 166 P.3d 807 (2007) (defendant’s derogatory statements about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and calling African American plaintiff a ” bitch” could be considered racially motivated and subjected plaintiff to hostile work environment), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1040 (2008)) (emphasis added).

THE O’NEAL RULE

(6) “In O’Neal v. City of Chicago, 392 F.3d 909, 912 (7th Cir. 2004), the Seventh Circuit held that the loss of a plaintiff’s cellular telephone, pager, vehicle, and parking space did not amount to an adverse employment action when those benefits were associated with the position from which the plaintiff was transferred.” Id. at 746. The Court in this case raised and dismissed the O’Neal Rule due to conflicting evidence.

TITLE VII FOR GUIDANCE

(7) “Because our discrimination laws substantially parallel Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § § 2000e to 2000e-17, [courts] …may look to federal law for guidance.” Id. at 755, n. 10 (citing Phanna K. Xieng v. Peoples Nat’l Bank of Wash., 120 Wn.2d 512, 518, 844 P.2d 389 (1993)).

LEARN MORE

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.

LEARN MORE

July 1, 2021October 20, 2024

Glasgow v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401 (Wash. 1985)

This is a case summary of Glasgow v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401 (Wash. 1985). Primary subjects include the following:

» SEXUAL HARASSMENT (HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)

» IMPUTING HARASSMENT TO EMPLOYER

» CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE

Advertisement

**Glasgow v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401 (Wash. 1985)**

CASE SUMMARY – 16 Facts:

[1] This case of first impression in this state involves sexual harassment at the work place.

[2] Two female employees brought suit against their employer, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, alleging sex discrimination in violation of RCW 49.60 and the tort of outrage [also known as intentional infliction of emotional distress].

[3] From October 1979 until January 1982, … a male co-worker, on several occasions ‘would place his hands on [one of the plaintiff’s] hips and rub his crotch across her back side as he was passing[,] … [stared] at her breasts[,] … placed his hand on her right breast without any welcome or invitation … and approach[ed] her from behind and grabbing her buttocks with his hands.’

[4] As early as November 1979 the plant manager knew this male employee was ‘using abusive language around female employees’ and had ‘touched or fondled’ this plaintiff and another female employee ‘in an unwanted sexual way.’ No corrective or disciplinary action was taken.

[5] Complaints of the co-worker’s ‘other intimidating behavior’ toward this plaintiff were lodged again in mid-1981, this time to a plant superintendent who acknowledged that other female employees, including the other plaintiff in this action, were also having problems with this male co-worker.

[6] Shortly thereafter, this plaintiff began to hear threats and complaints concerning her job performance purportedly coming from the plant manager.

[7] The other plaintiff had been working for the employer for only a month when the same male co-worker began to press himself against her in the same manner as he passed by her.

[8] A complaint was lodged with the plaint superintendent.

[9] The male co-worker would also stare at her ‘in a sexually intimidating way, follow her about the plant, in such a way that it intimidated her, [and] interfered with her work performance.’

[10] She tried to avoid him and informed the plant manager ‘who did nothing.’ She and yet another female employee confronted the plant manager about this ‘continued sexual harassment.’

[11] The male co-worker was finally transferred to another shift, but his course of intimidation continued. In addition, other employees, including a supervisor, acted ‘in an intimidating fashion’ toward this plaintiff because of her complaints.

[12] Not until February 1982 was the male co-worker given a 3-day suspension ‘based on his prior acts of sexual harassment.’

[13] One of the plaintiffs suffered ‘severe emotional anguish and distress demonstrated by physical symptoms’ of various kinds. She resigned in December 1981 after working less than 9 months.

[14] The other plaintiff was ’emotionally and psychologically injured’ and likewise demonstrated physical manifestations of ‘severe emotional distress.’ She resigned in October 1982.

[15] The trial court found that as a result of the foregoing acts and inactions, along with other similar ones, a hostile and intimidating work environment was created and it was this which proximately caused severe emotional distress to the plaintiffs.

[16] The trial court also found that these facts constituted the tort of outrage but that they did not permit a finding that either of the plaintiffs were constructively discharged from their jobs.

Glasgow v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401 (Wash. 1985) (internal citations omitted) (hyperlink added).

ISSUE #1: Did the trial court err in concluding that the employer was liable for sexual discrimination in violation of RCW 49.60?

[1-1] PROMPT & ADEQUATE CORRECTIVE ACTION: Under RCW 49.60, “an employer may ordinarily avoid liability for sexual harassment by taking prompt and adequate corrective action when it learns that an employee is being sexually harassed.” Glasgow v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 408 (Wash. 1985) (hyperlink added).

[1-2] HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT: “To establish a work environment sexual harassment case … an employee must prove the existence of the following [four] elements[ ][:]” (1) the harassment was unwelcome; (2) the harassment was because of sex; (3) the harassment affected the terms or conditions of employment; and (4) the harassment is imputed to the employer. Id. at 406-07 (footnote omitted).

[1-2a] THE HARASSMENT WAS UNWELCOME: “In order to constitute harassment, the complained of conduct must be unwelcome in the sense that the plaintiff-employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the further sense that the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive.” Id. at 406.

[1-2b] THE HARASSMENT WAS BECAUSE OF SEX: “The question to be answered here is: would the employee have been singled out and caused to suffer the harassment if the employee had been of a different sex? This statutory criterion requires that the gender of the plaintiff-employee be the motivating factor for the unlawful discrimination.” Id.

[1-2c] THE HARASSMENT AFFECTED THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT: “Casual, isolated or trivial manifestations of a discriminatory environment do not affect the terms or conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate the law.” Id. “The harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id.

TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES TEST: “Whether the harassment at the workplace is sufficiently severe and persistent to seriously affect the emotional or psychological well being of an employee is a question to be determined with regard to the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 406-07

[1-2d] THE HARASSMENT IS IMPUTED TO THE EMPLOYER:

WHERE OWNER, MANAGER, PARTNER, OR CORPORATE OFFICER HARASSES: “Where an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participates in the harassment, this element is met by such proof.” Id. at 407.

WHERE SUPERVISORS OR CO-WORKERS HARASS: “To hold an employer responsible for the discriminatory work environment created by a plaintiff’s supervisor(s) or co-worker(s), the employee must show that the employer[:]

(a) authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and

(b) failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.

Id. (emphasis and paragraph formatting added).

SHOWN THROUGH COMPLAINTS/PERVASIVENESS AND INSUFFICIENT REMEDIAL ACTION: “This may be shown by proving[:]

(a) that complaints were made to the employer through higher managerial or supervisory personnel or by proving such a pervasiveness of sexual harassment at the work place as to create an inference of the employer’s knowledge or constructive knowledge of it and

(b) that the employer’s remedial action was not of such nature as to have been reasonably calculated to end the harassment.

Id. (paragraph formatting and emphasis added).

[1-3] ONLY FOURTH ELEMENT (HARSSMENT IMPUTED TO EMPLOYER) WAS AT ISSUE: The Court only addressed the fourth element by reviewing the trial court’s finding as follows:

In the case at bar, [the employer] knew or should have known that [the male co-worker’s] unwelcome sexual advances and other verbal or physical conduct of his [sic] sexual nature were unreasonably interfering with [the plaintiffs’] work performance and/or created an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. Further, no reasonable immediate or appropriate corrective action was taken to remedy the situation.

Id. at 407 (citing Trial Court Finding of fact 54). The Court determined that “this finding is amply supported by the record; it is also unchallenged on appeal.”

[1-4] PLAINTIFFS SUBJECTED TO HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT: The Court held that “the plaintiff-employees established that they were subjected to uninvited sexual harassment by a co-worker with the actual knowledge of two supervisory personnel who undertook no reasonably prompt and adequate remedial measures to alleviate the resulting hostile and intimidating work environment in which the employees found themselves.” Id. at 404.

The Court further held that “the recovery of damages by the plaintiff-employees for the mental and emotional suffering they sustained was an appropriate remedy for such unlawful sexual discrimination.” Id.

ISSUE #2: Does a determination of unlawful discrimination support Plaintiffs’ claims of constructive discharge from employment?

[2-1] UNLAWFUL DISCHARGE ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE: The “existence of unlawful discharge alone is insufficient to support a finding of constructive discharge from employment.” Id. at 408 (internal citations omitted).

[2-2] INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE: The Court found that “the evidence in this case was not sufficient to convince the trial court, as the trier of fact, that either of the employees’ resignations constituted a constructive discharge such as to justify additional damages on account thereof.” Id.

[2-3] APPELLATE COURT AGREED WITH TRIAL COURT: The Court agreed with the trial court and found “that the existence of unlawful discrimination alone is insufficient to support a finding of constructive discharge from employment. Id. at 408 (referencing generally, Henson v. Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 907-08 (11th Cir. 1982); Nolan v. Cleland, 686 F.2d 806, 812-13 (9th Cir.1982); see also, Johnson v. Bunny Bread Co., 646 F.2d 1250, 1256 (8th Cir.1981)).

Accordingly, the Court held that “on the record Before us we cannot conclude this was error” for the trial court to hold that the facts did not permit a finding that either of the plaintiffs were constructively discharged from their jobs. Id.

NOTABLES & IMPLICATIONS:

POLICY

(1) “Sexual harassment as a working condition unfairly handicaps an employee against whom it is directed in his or her work performance and as such is a barrier to sexual equality in the workplace.” Id. at 405.

(2) “[W]e view the essential purpose of [the sexual harassment cause of action] to be preventative in nature.” See id. at 407-08 (referencing Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934, 945 (D.C.Cir.1981)).

(3) “[T]he Act does not impose a duty on the employer to maintain a pristine working environment. Rather, it imposes a duty on the employer to take prompt and appropriate action when it knows or should know of co-employees’ conduct in the workplace amounting to sexual harassment.” Id. at 406 (citing Continental Can Co. v. Minnesota, 297 N.W.2d 241, 249 (Minn.1980)).

QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT

(4) Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment is “a situation where an employer requires sexual consideration from an employee as a quid pro quo for job benefits.” Id. at 405.

TITLE VII

(5) “Interpretations of Title VII, § 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (1982) are not binding on this court, but are instructive and lend support to our decision herein.” Id. at 409, n.2 (referencing Davis v. Department of Labor & Indus., 94 Wash.2d 119, 615 P.2d 1279 (1980)).