 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. Scott Paper Worldwide Co.12/13/1999
employees and managers in the future. You are the one that had to acknowledge your problems and develop a plan to correct them to avoid further disruptions in the mill. Unfortunately, we did not hear any evidence that you had a plan for successful re-entry into the work place. You could not articulate the significant problems that le{a}d you to conflict and you continue to minimize the assault both in terms of severity and through fabrication of provocation. This continuing deflection of fault calls into question the sincerity of your apology and does not give the Company any assurance unprovoked assault or other interpersonal problems will not occur again in the future.
You have failed to convince the Company per the terms of {the offer to return to work} and the Suspension is converted to Discharge.
Clerk's Papers at 84. Scott Paper further stated that Brown's continued denial of wrongdoing and refusal to acknowledge her inability to handle stress, control her anger and emotions, and work as a team member indicated her "inability to understand that {she had} significant problems" in those areas and/or that she was misrepresenting her role in the assault. Id. Brown filed another grievance with her union and, following an arbitrator's decision, was returned to work as a machine tender, her assigned position based on the seniority system in place.
Several months later, Brown filed suit alleging, inter alia, discrimination on the basis of sex and disability and sexual harassment against Scott Paper and six of its managers individually. The defendants moved for summary judgment as to the disability discrimination claim, contending that there were no facts to support that cause of action. The managers moved for summary judgment as to the sexual harassment and sexual discrimination claims, contending that those claims, as well as the claim for disability discrimination, were not properly brought against them because individuals are not "employers" under Washington's Law Against Discrimination, Ch. 49.60 RCW. The court granted summary judgment dismissing Brown's disability discrimination claim, concluding that there was no issue of fact as to whether the defendants knew or should have known that Brown suffered from a condition defined as a handicap. The court also granted summary judgment dismissing Brown's claims under RCW 49.60 against the individually-named managers. Brown's sexual discrimination and sexual harassment claims against Scott Paper went to trial, resulting in a jury verdict for the defense.
Brown appeals the summary judgment rulings. We apply the usual standard of review of summary judgments. See, e.g., Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434, 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982); Guile v. Ballard Community Hosp., 70 Wn. App. 18, 23, 851 P.2d 689 (1993).
DISCUSSION
I.
Brown challenges the trial court's dismissal of her claims of sexual discrimination and harassment against the individual managers named in her complaint. The managers moved for summary dismissal of those claims on the ground that they were not "employers" as required by RCW 49.60.180 and, therefore, could not be held personally liable.
RCW 49.60.180 provides that it is an unfair practice for any "employer" to discharge any person from employment or discriminate against any person in the terms of employment because of sex or the presence of sensory, mental, or physical disability. RCW 49.60.180(2); (3). As defined by the act, an "employer" is "any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, who employs eight or more persons{.}" RCW 49.60.040(3).
"Person" includes one or more individuals;
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|