Dawn Cornwell v. Microsoft Corporation
74919-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jun 5, 2017Background
- Cornwell worked at Microsoft from 1997 until her termination in a September 2012 reduction‑in‑force (RIF); she previously had a 2005 dispute with manager Todd Parsons that resulted in settlement and a confidentiality agreement.
- In late 2011–early 2012 Cornwell disclosed to her new supervisor, Mary Ann Blake, that she had previously taken legal action against Parsons but refused to discuss details because of the settlement.
- Blake gave Cornwell negative mid‑year performance feedback, and later Cornwell received a final performance rating of "5" (lowest) in August 2012; McKinley approved including Cornwell in a group RIF.
- HR handled termination communications and published Cornwell’s final rating into the management system on the day of termination; this later affected Cornwell’s rehire prospects.
- Cornwell sued under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) for retaliation (RCW 49.60.210), alleging the prior protected activity caused her termination; the trial court granted summary judgment for Microsoft on causation grounds, and Cornwell appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cornwell showed causation for WLAD retaliation | Cornwell: Microsoft (corporate) had general knowledge of her prior legal action and that knowledge can be imputed to decisionmakers, so protected activity was a substantial factor in termination | Microsoft: No evidence that the actual decisionmakers (Blake or McKinley) knew the prior litigation involved protected activity, so no causal link | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Microsoft; plaintiff failed to show decisionmakers knew of protected activity or that it was a substantial factor |
| Whether corporate knowledge of protected activity can substitute for decisionmaker knowledge | Cornwell: Adopt a "general corporate knowledge" rule imputing knowledge to actors who made adverse decisions | Microsoft: Imputing corporate knowledge is insufficient without evidence decisionmakers knew or that knowledge influenced the decision | Court: Declined to adopt broad "general corporate knowledge" principle; causation requires evidence decisionmakers knew or circumstances showing they acted with knowledge |
| Whether proximity and satisfactory performance created an inference of retaliation | Cornwell: Temporal proximity and prior favorable performance support an inference of retaliatory motive | Microsoft: Other legitimate, non‑retaliatory processes (performance review, RIF, HR handling) explain outcome | Court: Proximity and selective evidence insufficient here because no proof decisionmakers knew of protected activity; speculation cannot defeat summary judgment |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Cornwell: Triable issue exists on causation and knowledge | Microsoft: No genuine dispute of material fact on required knowledge or causation | Court: Summary judgment proper; plaintiff did not present admissible evidence raising a genuine issue on causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 118 Wn.2d 46 (Wn. 1991) (retaliation causation requires protected activity to be a "significant or substantial factor")
- Allison v. Housing Auth., 118 Wn.2d 79 (Wn. 1991) (same principle on causation standard)
- Gordon v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2000) (discusses corporate knowledge but still requires individual agent knowledge or circumstances showing knowledge for causation)
- Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2003) (insufficient causation where decisionmakers lacked evidence of plaintiff's protected activity)
- Kahn v. Salerno, 90 Wn. App. 110 (Wn. App. 1998) (time proximity and satisfactory performance can suggest improper motive but require employer knowledge)
- Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1982) (employer awareness of protected activity is essential to causation)