State Of Washington v. Mercedes Perez-melgosa, Phd.
73627-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 15, 2016Background
- Mercedes Perez-Melgosa, a Spanish‑born PhD research scientist (RSE‑3), worked on a Smallpox Vaccine Myocarditis Study at University of Washington and reported directly to Professor Deborah Nickerson.
- Washington had a statewide salary freeze (Feb 2009–June 2013); limited raises were permitted for retention, reclassification, or promotion through competition.
- Perez‑Melgosa requested a promotion/raise in 2010; Nickerson denied the request citing the statewide freeze. Some lab employees received raises during the freeze for retention or different job classifications.
- In 2012 Nickerson raised performance concerns about Perez‑Melgosa (notably unauthorized changes to QC test results); Perez‑Melgosa was terminated in November 2012 for lack of judgment and unauthorized data changes.
- Perez‑Melgosa sued under the Washington Law Against Discrimination alleging disparate treatment, hostile work environment, wage discrimination, and retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the wage discrimination and retaliation claims; the jury found for UW on the remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Perez‑Melgosa established a prima facie wage‑discrimination claim under WLAD (national origin) | Perez‑Melgosa argued she was denied a raise/promotion and points to coworkers who received raises during the freeze as comparators | UW argued she failed to identify similarly situated comparators and the denial was explained by the statewide freeze and legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for other raises | Court held Perez‑Melgosa failed to establish a prima facie case because she did not show comparators were similarly situated in material respects |
| Whether UW's stated reason (salary freeze) was pretext for discrimination | Perez‑Melgosa contended raises given to other lab members show the freeze was a pretext | UW showed many raises were for retention, different classifications, or occurred after Perez‑Melgosa left; submitted testimony and evidence undermining Perez‑Melgosa’s chart | Court held Perez‑Melgosa failed to show pretext or that national origin was a substantial motivating factor |
| Whether trial evidence cited on appeal could be considered for summary judgment review | Perez‑Melgosa relied on trial testimony/exhibits to challenge the summary judgment dismissal | UW and court noted appellate review of summary judgment is limited to the evidence before the trial court at the time of the motion | Court disregarded trial‑only evidence on appeal per RAP 9.12 and affirmed summary judgment |
| Burden on summary judgment for discrimination claims and proper standard | Perez‑Melgosa argued disputed facts warranted denial of summary judgment | UW invoked McDonnell Douglas framework and CR 56 standards, arguing absence of material fact on comparators and pretext | Court applied McDonnell Douglas and CR 56, viewing evidence in favor of nonmoving party, and found no genuine issue of material fact on wage discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- Neigh. All. of Spokane County v. Spokane County, 172 Wn.2d 702 (discussing de novo review on summary judgment)
- Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 216 (summary judgment standard; view facts in favor of nonmoving party)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (allocation of burdens on summary judgment)
- Scrivener v. Clark College, 181 Wn.2d 439 (applying McDonnell Douglas framework in WLAD cases)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)
- Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (prima facie case and employer burden to articulate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Hill v. BCTI Income Fund‑I, 144 Wn.2d 172 (consequences when plaintiff fails to meet production burden)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 796 (requirement that comparators be nearly identical)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (similarly situated standard to eliminate other explanatory variables)
- Bagwe v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 866 (factors relevant to comparability in wage claims)