Andrea Garcia v. Walmart Inc., doing business as Walmart 2269, and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Summary

The court addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in Andrea Garcia’s employment case against Walmart and Wal-Mart Associates. The claims include retaliation under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and negligent supervision. The court finds multiple material factual disputes concerning Garcia’s reports of sexual harassment, Walmart’s knowledge, the timing and basis of her termination, and the treatment of attendance occurrences, and therefore grants and denies the motions in part.

Holdings

1. Neither side was entitled to summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claim because material factual disputes existed regarding the decisionmaker's knowledge of Garcia's protected complaint, the timing and circumstances of the termination, the exercise of discretion over attendance occurrences, causation, and pretext.
2. Neither side was entitled to summary judgment on the WLAD retaliation claim because the same factual disputes that precluded judgment on the Title VII retaliation claim also precluded judgment on the state-law retaliation claim.
3. Neither side was entitled to summary judgment on the wrongful-discharge claim because Garcia presented sufficient evidence to create factual disputes regarding whether her protected reporting was a significant factor in her termination and whether defendants' attendance explanation was pretextual.
4. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the negligent-supervision claim because Garcia identified no evidence that the assistant manager acted outside the scope of employment or that the other elements of negligent supervision were satisfied, and the claim was duplicative of the retaliation claims.
5. The respondeat-superior claim was not dismissed because the court declined to grant summary judgment on three underlying claims.
6. Garcia was entitled to summary judgment on the failure-to-mitigate affirmative defense, and the defense was dismissed.
7. Garcia was entitled to summary judgment on the defense that she unreasonably failed to use employer procedures or avoid consequences because defendants withdrew the defense.
8. Garcia was entitled to summary judgment on defendants' failure-to-state-a-claim affirmative defense because that defense is not a proper affirmative defense under Ninth Circuit authority.

Questions Presented

1. Whether either party was entitled to summary judgment on Garcia's Title VII retaliation claim.
2. Whether either party was entitled to summary judgment on Garcia's Washington Law Against Discrimination retaliation claim.
3. Whether either party was entitled to summary judgment on Garcia's wrongful-discharge-in-violation-of-public-policy claim.
4. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Garcia's negligent-supervision claim.
5. Whether the respondeat-superior claim should be dismissed because the underlying claims were not all resolved in defendants' favor.
6. Whether defendants' affirmative defenses concerning bona fide reasons, legitimate nondiscriminatory factors, good faith, and same action presented issues for the jury.
7. Whether Garcia was entitled to summary judgment on the failure-to-mitigate, avoidable-consequences, and failure-to-state-a-claim defenses.

Disposition

other