Denise Smith v. Sonitrol Pacific
74265-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2016Background
- Denise Smith worked as a Sonitrol operator (formerly a shift supervisor); by 2012 her performance declined and she received multiple written warnings for attendance and failure to follow alarm procedures.
- On January 9, 2013 Smith reported to HR that branch managers (Bullis and Evans) consumed alcohol during the workday; HR informed company president Bradley who warned management to stop.
- On January 15, 2013 Smith told Bradley a coworker (LaMont) had a criminal conviction; the same day she mishandled a fire alarm from a school, delaying dispatch ~17 minutes and misreporting the incident.
- After the school contacted Sonitrol about the delay, Bradley decided to terminate Smith; Sonitrol cited repeated performance warnings and the serious alarm protocol violation.
- Smith sued for discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation (alleging termination for reporting alcohol use), negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision; the trial court granted summary judgment dismissing her retaliation and emotional distress claims, and Smith appeals only the retaliation dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith may rely on retaliation theories first asserted in her summary-judgment opposition (reporting sexual harassment; reporting coworker’s criminal history) | Smith argued those activities were protected and motivated her firing | Sonitrol argued those theories were not pleaded and thus not proper at summary judgment | Court held theories not pleaded in complaint cannot be raised in opposition to summary judgment and were dismissed |
| Whether Smith established a prima facie retaliation claim for reporting supervisors’ workday alcohol use | Smith argued her report to HR was protected activity and led to termination | Sonitrol conceded adverse action but contended it had a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for firing her | Court assumed prima facie case but addressed pretext and found Smith failed to rebut employer’s reason |
| Whether Sonitrol’s legitimate reason (performance history and serious alarm mishandling/cover-up) was pretext for retaliation | Smith argued proffered reasons were pretextual, citing other employees’ mistakes and temporal proximity | Sonitrol presented signed warnings, documentation of the alarm violation, and testimony showing prior warnings and severity | Court held Sonitrol’s reasons had factual basis and Smith failed to show they were pretext; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether causation was established for alleged sexual-harassment-based retaliation (if it had been pleaded) | Smith relied on her complaints to supervisor Evans | Sonitrol noted no evidence decisionmaker (Bradley) knew of those complaints when firing | Court noted plaintiff produced no evidence Bradley knew of harassment complaints, so causation lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for disparate treatment/retaliation claims)
- Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 179 Wn.2d 684 (de novo review standard for summary judgment in Washington)
- Camp Fin., LLC v. Brazington, 133 Wn. App. 156 (complaint must identify legal theories; plaintiffs may not raise new theories at summary judgment without amendment)
- Dewey v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 95 Wn. App. 18 (plaintiff cannot add an unpleaded First Amendment theory at summary judgment where complaint lacks necessary elements)
- Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wn. App. 454 (defendants entitled to fair notice of claims; appellate court affirmed dismissal of unpleaded constitutional claim)