44 F. Supp. 3d 1051
E.D. Wash.2014Background
- Plaintiff Williams was hired in 2001 by the American Legion Dept. of Washington and trained as a Certified Service Officer in 2004.
- Powell was appointed Department Service Officer for Washington in January 2012, overseeing Seattle, American Lake, and Spokane offices.
- In early 2012, Powell allegedly disparaged Williams and Purcell as unqualified due to disability; Powell denies these comments.
- Plaintiffs filed EEOC and internal complaints against Powell in 2012, including concerns about hostility and disclosure of private health matters.
- Emails and computer-use policy disputes in mid-2012 culminated in Powell revoking computer access and directing potential termination; Williams and Purcell were terminated in September 2012.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in June 2013; Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA retaliation against Powell | Plaintiffs claim Powell’s actions and animus caused their termination. | Powell cannot be sued personally under the ADA; employer is the proper defendant. | Powell’s individual liability is dismissed |
| ADA retaliation against American Legion | Protected activity caused termination; defendant’s rationale is pretext. | Non-retaliatory computer-use policy justification is legitimate. | Summary judgment denied on causation/pretext; issues remain for trial |
| WLAD retaliation liability (Powell and/or American Legion) | Protected activity caused termination; supervisors may be liable under WLAD. | Similar to ADA, with debate on causation and scope of liability. | Material facts remain; WLAD retaliation claims survive summary judgment |
| Pretext for termination under WLAD/ADA | Defendants’ stated computer-policy justification is pretextual. | Policy violation provides legitimate non-retaliatory reason. | Material facts in dispute; pretext cannot be resolved at summary judgment |
| Privacy claims | Powell disclosed health information; publications harmed privacy. | No publication to the public; claims fail as a matter of law. | Privacy claims granted in favor of defendants (dismissed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Tex. Southwest Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (but-for causation standard for Title VII retaliation adopted for ADA? guidance)
- Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000) (ADA retaliation framework aligned with Title VII retaliation)
- Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (temporal proximity in retaliation cases; timing considerations)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext framework in retaliation discrimination cases)
- Reid v. Pierce County, 136 Wash.2d 195 (1998) (publication/publicity element in invasions of privacy)
- Eastwood v. Cascade Broad. Co., 106 Wash.2d 466 (1986) (false light elements and recklessness standards)