285 P.3d 854
Wash.2012Background
- WLAD amendment adding sexual orientation as protected class (2006)
- Loeffelholz sues UW and Lukehart for discrimination based on sexual orientation; claims hostile work environment based on preamendment acts and one postamendment act
- Pre-amendment conduct not unlawful when committed; amendment is prospective only
- Post-amendment ‘angry man’ comment potentially discriminatory; its relation to preamendment conduct is contested
- Trial court granted summary judgment based on statute of limitations and non-retroactivity; CA reversed; this Court granted review
- This Court holds amendment is not retroactive; preamendment conduct unrecoverable but admissible as background; postamendment ‘angry man’ could create triable issue
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is preamendment conduct actionable? | Preamendment acts part of hostile environment | Acts were not unlawful when committed; not actionable | Not actionable; retroactive application denied |
| Is the postamendment ‘angry man’ comment a discriminatory act? | Comment, with context, constitutes harassment | Comment insufficiently connected to preamendment conduct | May establish prima facie harassment if postamendment and linked to prior conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d 256 (Wash. 2004) (hostile work environment analysis; totality of circumstances; pre/post amendment context)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (retroactivity presumption; prospective application unless intended otherwise)
- Graves v. District of Columbia, 843 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D.D.C. 2012) (non-actionable pre-enactment conduct may be background evidence)
- Morrison v. Carleton Woolen Mills, Inc., 108 F.3d 429 (1st Cir. 1997) (pre-enactment conduct admissible for some purposes; context/intent)
- Crownover v. Dep’t of Transp., 165 Wn. App. 131 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011) (distinguishable; appellate holding on timing of actionable conduct)