In Derr v. Kern Cnty. Fire Dep’t, 117 FEP Cases 29 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013), the court affirmed the dismissal of claims of retaliation and discrimination of a firefighter who was subject to a hostile work environment at the hands of his supervisor who harbored staunchly homophobic views. The plaintiff, who has a homosexual daughter, claimed his supervisor continually harassed him, and even after their shifts were changed, the supervisor went out of his way to find the plaintiff and make harassing comments to him. While the court found that no adverse employment action occurred that would support the claims of discrimination and retaliation, the plaintiff had made a clear case of workplace harassment.
When a heterosexual delivery truck driver sued for being called “Big Gay Al” at work, the Washington State Court of Appeals found, in Davis v. Fred's Appliance Inc.,that the perception of homosexuality is not protected by Washington’s law against discrimination (“WLAD”), RCW 49.60.
In Kiona Benton School District, Decision 11563 (EDUC, 2012), the union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labor practice, in retaliating against three, school district employees who exercised their statutory right to participate in an earlier PERC ULP proceeding. PERC hearing examiner Steve Irvin concluded that even though the employees had engaged in protected activities and the employer's layoffs arguably violated the collective bargaining agreement, the union did not carry its burden of proof that the employer actions were pretextual.
In Sterling Savings Bank v. Stanley, a Washington District Court rejected Sterling Bank’s argument that receipt of federal Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds, restricts them from making any payment to its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mrs. Heidi Stanley, after her termination. The Court found that TARP was not intended to prevent monetary recovery in discrimination suits like Mrs. Stanley’s.
In Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, an asbestos office program coordinator at the University of Washington, Debra Loeffelholz, alleged that James Lukehart, her supervisor from 2003 to early 2006, discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation. Loeffelholz claimed the sexual-orientation-based discrimination created a hostile work environment. Upon review, the State Supreme Court found that Loeffelholz’s claims before the enactment of the amendment adding sexual orientation as a protected class in Washington were unrecoverable because the amendment is not retroactive. However, the Court also found that a jury must resolve the questions of fact arising from the last, potentially post-amendment incident.
