 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Greene v. Seattle City Light12/20/1999
iting Kahn v. Salerno, Greene notes that Washington recognizes a cause of action for retaliation under RCW 49.60. This statute states in part: "It is an unfair practice for any employer . . . to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by this chapter." Retaliation does not need to be the principal motivation for discharging an employee. To establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, the employee must show that (1) he was engaged in statutorily protected activity, (2) the employer discharged him, (3) retaliation was a substantial factor behind the discharge, and (4) the discharge was not for proper cause.
City Light discharged Greene, so the second element is met. Thus, the issue is whether City Light established the absence of any of the three other elements required to establish a retaliation claim.
With respect to the first element, Greene appears to argue that he was engaged in two types of protected opposition activity and that City Light discharged him in retaliation for one or both of those activities. The first activity is his advocacy for civil rights throughout his career at City Light, and the second is his participation in the civil service hearings where he contested his demotion. We focus on the civil service hearings because it was there that Greene directly opposed City Light's alleged racial discrimination in demoting him.
To determine whether Greene was engaged in a statutorily protected activity, we balance the setting in which the activity arose and the respective interests and motives of the employer and employee.
Additionally, the activity must be in opposition to conduct that is at least arguably a violation of the law. Here, the activity in question Greene's participation in the civil service hearings was the result of Greene's demotion, which he alleged was racially motivated. Opposing racial discrimination is paradigmatic protected opposition activity.
Regarding the respective interests and motives of the employer and employee, the record is unclear. But if we consider all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Greene, City Light's interests and motivations in demoting him could be discriminatory.
The second element, whether retaliation was a substantial factor in the discharge, depends upon the employer's motive. To determine an employer's motivation, courts consider the proximity in time between the termination and the protected activity, as well as evidence of satisfactory work performance or other evaluations. Moreover, if an employee establishes that he was engaged in protected activities, that the employer knew of those activities, and that the employee was discharged, a rebuttable presumption arises in favor of the employee, precluding a summary dismissal of the case.
Here, City Light has failed to overcome a rebuttable presumption in favor of Greene. He was arguably engaged in protected activity in contesting his demotion at the civil service hearing. Clearly, City Light knew of that activity and discharged him. Thus, we are faced with a genuine issue of material fact on this element.
We note, in this connection, that handwritten notes from a City Light management meeting of an unknown date support an inference of retaliation. In the right-hand corner of a page identified as "Joe Greene{e} discipline," are the quotations, "grim situation," "racism undertone," and "opportunity to get him."
We conclude that Greene has established sufficient facts to establish this element of his prima facie case of retaliation.
The final question is whethe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|