Legal Opinion

Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 17, 2001No. 68783-8PublishedCited by 143 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBridge, J.

— We are asked to clarify the evidentiary standard that a plaintiff with a chapter 49.60 RCW employment discrimination claim must meet to survive a motion for judgment as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals adopted the so-called “pretext-plus” standard, which was recently rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105 (2000). We, too, reject the pretext-plus standard and thus vacate the Court of Appeals’ opinion. We affirm its rulings in this case on different grounds.

FACTS

In August 1993, Randy…

2Cases cited59 opinions

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
  4. St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by143 opinions

  1. Godofredo Hernandez v. Spacelabs Medical Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  2. Scrivener v. Clark CollegeWashington Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Antonius v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2004

138 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API