Lexplug logoLexplug

Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp.

Washington Supreme Court
430 P.3d 229 (2018)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), an employee can demonstrate the causation element by showing that the employer knew or suspected that the employee engaged in a statutorily protected activity. An employer's actual knowledge of the specific legal nature of the protected activity is not required.


Facts:

  • Dawn Cornwell previously settled a confidential claim against her employer, Microsoft Corporation, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation by her then-supervisor, Todd Parsons.
  • Seven years later, Cornwell's new manager, Mary Anne Blake, asked Cornwell to mentor an employee who reported to Parsons.
  • Cornwell told Blake she could not do so because she had a prior confidential "lawsuit" against Microsoft involving a review score and Parsons.
  • Blake discussed Cornwell's prior lawsuit with her own supervisor, Nicole McKinley, and inquired about it with Human Resources.
  • Shortly after learning of the lawsuit, despite Cornwell's history of positive performance reviews, Blake informed Cornwell she was trending toward a very low rating.
  • Over the objections of other managers who believed Cornwell was a high performer, Blake and McKinley gave Cornwell the lowest possible performance rating of '5'.
  • Cornwell was subsequently laid off as part of a larger reduction in force and was not informed of her low score.
  • Several years later, Cornwell learned she was ineligible for rehire at Microsoft due to her poor final performance rating.

Procedural Posture:

  • Dawn Cornwell filed a lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation in a Washington trial court, alleging retaliation in violation of WLAD.
  • Microsoft moved for summary judgment, arguing Cornwell failed to establish a prima facie case.
  • The trial court granted Microsoft's motion for summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence that Cornwell's supervisors knew her prior action was a complaint under WLAD.
  • Cornwell, as appellant, appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Microsoft, the appellee.
  • Cornwell, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington (the state's highest court), which granted review.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an employee present sufficient evidence of a causal link for a retaliation claim under the Washington Law Against Discrimination to survive summary judgment by showing that her supervisors had knowledge of her prior lawsuit against the employer, even if they did not know the specific WLAD-protected nature of that suit?


Opinions:

Majority - Wiggins, J.

Yes. An employee presents sufficient evidence of a causal link to survive summary judgment by showing her supervisors had knowledge of her prior protected activity. The court adopts the "knew or suspected" standard, under which an employee can establish causation if a reasonable jury could infer that a supervisor knew or suspected the employee engaged in protected activity and that this was a substantial factor in the adverse employment action. Even under the stricter "actual knowledge" standard, Cornwell produced sufficient evidence. Her supervisors, Blake and McKinley, knew she had filed a lawsuit against a male supervisor over a review score. The adverse action—a sudden, extremely negative performance review that contradicted peer feedback—occurred in close temporal proximity to their learning this information. This circumstantial evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer that the supervisors' knowledge of her prior protected activity was a substantial factor in their decision, making summary judgment for the employer inappropriate.


Dissenting - Not specified in text.

No. While agreeing with the adoption of the "knew or suspected" standard, the dissent argues that the majority misapplied it by failing to identify any evidence that the supervisors knew or suspected the prior lawsuit involved a WLAD-protected activity like sex discrimination. The supervisors' knowledge was limited to the fact that Cornwell had a prior lawsuit involving a male supervisor and a review score. This could have stemmed from numerous non-WLAD causes, such as tort claims or whistleblower retaliation under other statutes. The dissent contends the majority's analysis is over-inclusive, as it effectively treats any prior lawsuit against a male supervisor as potential WLAD-protected activity, thereby improperly relieving the plaintiff of her burden to show a causal link to a specifically WLAD-protected action.



Analysis:

This decision significantly lowers the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in WLAD retaliation cases to survive summary judgment in Washington. By formally adopting the 'knew or suspected' standard, the court makes it more difficult for employers to have such cases dismissed early in litigation based on a decision-maker's claimed ignorance of the specific nature of an employee's prior complaint. The ruling emphasizes the importance of circumstantial evidence, such as temporal proximity, in establishing a causal link, reflecting the reality that direct evidence of retaliatory motive is often hidden. This precedent will likely lead to more retaliation claims proceeding to trial, encouraging employers to exercise greater caution when taking adverse actions against employees known to have engaged in any prior legally protected opposition to company practices.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp. (2018)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"