Nouhoum Sidibe v. Pierce County, 53484-3

Nouhoum Sidibe, a Black corrections deputy hired in 2014, attended mandatory firearms qualification on March 13, 2018; he was the only Black person present.
Instructors directed shooters to pick up casings; Sidibe later reported others’ failures to do so and scored highest on the qualification.
After lunch, instructors alleged the smell of alcohol on Sidibe; he was publicly escorted off the range and submitted to portable breath tests and a breathalyzer that all read 0.0.
Internal affairs (IA) investigators interviewed Sidibe twice; IA opened a formal investigation that will remain on his personnel file regardless of outcome.
Coworker ridicule followed, Sidibe changed shifts and took leave, and he sued Pierce County under the WLAD for race-based disparate treatment; the trial court granted Pierce County’s CR 12(c) partial motion dismissing the disparate treatment claim related to the IA investigation.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an IA investigation can, depending on context, be an adverse employment action and that Sidibe pleaded facts that could entitle him to relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an internal affairs investigation can constitute an "adverse employment action" under the WLAD for a disparate treatment claim	Sidibe: the IA investigation and its consequences (stigma, impact on promotion, personnel file, ridicule, shift change, leave) materially affected employment conditions and therefore are adverse	Pierce County: IA investigations are investigatory/inconveniences and, as a matter of law, do not constitute adverse employment actions	Reversed trial court; whether an IA investigation is materially adverse is a fact question and may constitute an adverse employment action depending on context; Sidibe pleaded a viable claim

P.E. Sys., LLC v. CPI Corp., 176 Wn.2d 198 (Wa. 2012) (CR 12(c) de novo review and pleadings standard)
Fedway Marketplace W., LLC v. State, 183 Wn. App. 860 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014) (pleading standard: whether plaintiff can prove any set of facts consistent with complaint)
Parrilla v. King County, 138 Wn. App. 427 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (pleading standards cited for dismissal motions)
Postema v. Pollution Control Hr’gs Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68 (Wash. 2000) (view pleadings in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wn. App. 454 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (IA investigations may be non-actionable absent a material impact)
State v. Boyd, 187 Wn. App. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (whether actions are adverse is a jury question; actions taken together may be materially adverse)
Blackburn v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 186 Wn.2d 250 (Wash. 2016) (WLAD construed liberally; concrete examples of race-based employment actions)
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (definition of tangible/adverse employment actions under federal law)
Grimwood v. Univ. of Puget Sound, Inc., 110 Wn.2d 355 (Wash. 1988) (Title VII federal cases as guidance, not binding, when interpreting WLAD)