Maurice Crain v. Dshs
49135-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- Maurice Crain, an African‑American psychiatric security attendant at Western State Hospital since 1990, was employed under a Last Chance Agreement permitting immediate termination for further misconduct.
- On Sept. 6, 2012, patient R.K. fell to the floor and choked; surveillance showed five employees (including Crain) walking past without assisting; R.K. later died.
- Washington State Patrol investigated and DSHS terminated Crain, Parsons, and Smith; two others’ employment was adjusted or not renewed after union negotiations; some employees were cleared after review of video.
- DSHS’s Notice of Dismissal cited failure to assess the patient, violation of hospital policy and the Last Chance Agreement, and dishonesty; Crain’s statements conflicted with video evidence.
- Crain sued for disparate treatment (race), among other claims; trial court granted DSHS summary judgment, finding DSHS’s stated reasons non‑pretextual; Crain appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improperly granted in an employment discrimination case | Crain: trial court misapplied summary judgment standards and a genuine issue of material fact exists that race was a substantial motivating factor | DSHS: provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (misconduct, policy violations, Last Chance Agreement); no direct evidence of racial motive | Affirmed: appellate court reviews de novo and may affirm on any record ground; no reversible misapplication shown |
| Whether there is direct evidence that race was a substantial factor | Crain: treatment of others and alleged exoneration by other agencies shows race motivated termination | DSHS: no discriminatory statements or "smoking gun" evidence; conduct and dishonesty supported termination | Rejected: plaintiff offered no direct evidence of discriminatory motive |
| Whether circumstantial evidence supports a prima facie disparate‑treatment claim | Crain: argued comparators were treated more favorably | DSHS: Last Chance Agreement and factual differences undermine comparators; some employees were cleared after video review | Appellate court assumed, without deciding, that Crain could make a prima facie case but proceeded to next step |
| Whether DSHS’s reasons were pretextual | Crain: disciplinary inaction by other agencies and differential outcomes show pretext/discrimination | DSHS: reasons (failure to assess, dishonesty, policy violation) have factual basis in video and Last Chance Agreement; external agencies’ decisions irrelevant to pretext | Held: Crain failed to raise a genuine issue that DSHS’s reasons were pretextual or that race was nevertheless a substantial factor; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Scrivener v. Clark Coll., 181 Wn.2d 439 (2014) (summary judgment standard and proving protected trait as substantial motivating factor)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination evidence)
- Fulton v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 169 Wn. App. 137 (2012) (direct evidence and "smoking gun" discussion)
- Alonso v. Qwest Commc’ns Co., 178 Wn. App. 734 (2013) (elements for prima facie disparate treatment)
- Washington v. Boeing Co., 105 Wn. App. 1 (2000) (similarly situated comparator requirement)
- Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138 (2004) (appellate affirmation of summary judgment on any record‑supported ground)
- Washburn v. City of Federal Way, 178 Wn.2d 732 (2013) (appellate scope to affirm on any ground)