Logan Coles & Cody Lord v. Kam-way Transportation
75471-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 11, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Logan Coles and Cody Lord, a gay couple, worked for Kam-Way Transportation and were terminated in March 2011; they sued nearly three years later asserting WLAD claims including hostile work environment and retaliation.
- At summary judgment the trial court denied Kam‑Way’s statute‑of‑limitations defense but later granted Kam‑Way’s motion disposing of the WLAD hostile work environment and retaliation claims; plaintiffs appealed only hostile work environment and retaliation (other claims deemed abandoned).
- Plaintiffs alleged repeated derogatory comments, mockery, and differential treatment by senior employees (CFO Dori Binder, CEO Kamaljit Sihota, and COO Herman Sihota), an e‑mail containing a homophobic slur forwarded by the CEO, and discipline/termination within days of each other.
- Plaintiffs argued the conduct was unwelcome, motivated by sexual orientation, altered terms/conditions of employment, and was imputable to the employer; they also alleged retaliation for complaining about the conduct.
- The Court of Appeals concluded genuine issues of material fact existed on the hostile work environment claim (including imputing manager conduct to the employer) but affirmed summary judgment for Kam‑Way on the retaliation claim because plaintiffs failed to show they engaged in statutorily protected opposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (WLAD) — unwelcome, class‑motivated, altered terms/conditions, imputable to employer | Coles/Lord: multiple incidents (derogatory remarks, singled out at meetings, e‑mail slur, jokes) created a pervasive hostile environment based on sexual orientation and managers participated | Kam‑Way: conduct was isolated/minor, not sufficiently pervasive or class‑motivated to alter employment conditions | Reversed summary judgment; genuine issues of material fact exist on all four elements — triable issue whether conduct was pervasive and motivated by sexual orientation and whether it altered employment conditions |
| Imputation to employer (manager vs. supervisor liability) | Plaintiffs: Binder, Herman, and Kamaljit held management roles; manager participation and supervisory knowledge/liability apply | Kam‑Way did not contest managerial status but argued incidents were minor/isolated | Harassment may be imputed; court found managers’ positions sufficed to raise fact issues and imputation is appropriate for trial |
| Retaliation (RCW 49.60.210) — protected activity element | Plaintiffs: raising concerns about Binder’s conduct constituted opposition to discriminatory practices | Kam‑Way: complaints were general, did not reference sexual orientation or allege discrimination, so not WLAD‑protected opposition | Affirmed summary judgment for defendant: plaintiffs failed to show they engaged in statutorily protected opposition (no evidence they raised discrimination based on sexual orientation) |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Plaintiffs sought fees under RCW 49.60.030(2) after partial success on appeal | Kam‑Way opposed | Denied without prejudice as premature because no trial or final prevailing party yet |
Key Cases Cited
- Scrivener v. Clark Coll., 181 Wn.2d 439 (Wash. 2014) (summary judgment standard and WLAD burdens)
- Loeffelholz v. Univ. of Wash., 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012) (hostile work environment elements and totality‑of‑circumstances analysis)
- Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d 256 (Wash. 2004) (hostile work environment framework)
- Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (Wash. 2015) (appellate review of summary judgment)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (objective/subjective hostility and severity/frequency analysis)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (employer liability for supervisory harassment and workplace standards)