Issue: WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS NEEDED TO ASSERT A RETALIATION CLAIM.
| Area of Law: | Employee Law |
| Keywords: | Retaliation claim; Adverse employment action; Protected activity |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal |
| Cited Cases: | 784 P.2d 1258; 971 P.2d 45; 113 Wn. 2d 912; 217 F.3d 1234 |
| Cited Statutes: | Wash. Rev. Code §§ 49.60.20, 49.60.30; |
| Date: | 03/01/2001 |
A prima facie case of unlawful retaliation is established by proof that an employee participated in a protected activity, that the employer took an adverse employment action against him or her, and that a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Wash. Rev. Code §§ 49.60.20, 49.60.30; Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wn. 2d 912, 784 P.2d 1258 (1990); Martini v. Boeing Co., 137 Wn. 2d 357, 971 P.2d 45 (1999).
See Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 928-29 (9th Cir. 2000). No adverse job actions occurred in Brooks, because the employer accommodated the plaintiff’s preferences by allowing her to switch shifts and vacation dates with other employees after she complained. Id., 229 F.3d at 928-29. In fact, the rule of law is that any “non‑trivial employment actions that would deter reasonable employees from complaining about [EEOC] violations will constitute actionable retaliation.” See Ray v. Henderson , 217 F.3d 1234, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000), cited in Brooks, 229 F.3d at 927. Unexplained demotions, denial of training and promotion opportunities, elimination of employee programs such as flexible schedules, lockdown procedures, and workload reductions, all constitute adverse employment actions because they are likely to deter employees from complaining about workplace discrimination. Ray, 217 F.3d at 1243.
[…]