Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Madry v. King County Department of Transportation

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

May 9, 2019

YOLANDA MADRY, Plaintiff,
v.
KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KCDOT), Defendant.

          NOLAN LIM LAW FIRM, P.S. Nolan Lim Law Firm, PS Attorney for Plaintiff

          DANIEL T. SATTERBERG King County Prosecuting Attorney Donna F. Bond, Attorneys for King County

          PRETRIAL ORDER LCR 16(1)

          Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge.

         The parties submit this Joint Pretrial Statement in accordance with Western District of Washington Civil Rule 16(h) and the Court's Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates.

         I. FEDERAL JURISDICTION

         Jurisdiction in this case is pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §1367.

         II. CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

         A. Plaintiff's Claims

         1. RCW 49.60 - DISPARATE TREATMENT - Plaintiff is alleging disparate treatment based on Race.

         2. RCW 49.60 - RETALIATION FOR OPPOSING A DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE Plaintiff is alleging that she was terminated in retaliation for opposing a discriminatory practice at work.

         B. Defendant's Defenses

         1. The damages and/or injuries alleged by the plaintiff, if any, are the result of the plaintiff's own conduct and were not the result of any conduct of the defendant.

         2. King County would have made the same decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment.

         3. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages, if any exist.

         III. STIPULATED FACTS

         The following facts are admitted by the parties:

1. On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff received an offer of employment as a term-limited temporary Transit Administrative Support Specialist III (TASS III) in the Transit Division's Human Resources Section. Plaintiff's start date was April 14, 2015 and the work was anticipated to end no later than April 13, 2016.
2. Plaintiff received an offer letter for the position of Recruiting Coordinator TLT (HR Associate) on May 4, 2015.
3. Plaintiff began her position as a TLT Recruiting Coordinator (HR Associate) on May 11, 2015.
4. Ivette Martinez Morales formally reviewed Plaintiff's work performance in August of 2015.
5. The TASS III position reported to Adrienne Leslie. As an HR Associate, Plaintiff's supervisor was Ivette Martinez Morales during her employment term.
6. King County conducted an investigation into Plaintiff's access into NEOGOV during early October of 2015.
7. King County employee Susan Eddy conducted an investigation of an allegation that Plaintiff misused county information technology assets. Plaintiff was suspected to have improperly used the NEOGOV applicant tracking system by accessing applicant information in a recruitment for which she was an active applicant, changing applicant status, and moving applications through examination steps.
8. Plaintiff told employee James Moreau that King County employee, Ivette Martinez Martinez Morales mentioned the words “race card” to her in reference to another Black employee applying for a job by the name of Lee Jones.
9. Plaintiff was terminated from King County on October 16, 2015.
10. Plaintiff sought no medical, mental health, or psychiatric care between January 26, 2015 and March 18, 2016 other than filling previously prescribed prescriptions for medication.
11. Plaintiff was diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder several years ago and has been prescribed and taking medications to treat it since at least 2013.

         IV. ISSUES OF LAW

         The following are the issues of law to be determined by the Court:

         A. Plaintiff:

1. Did Defendant violate Plaintiff's rights under RCW 49.60 by treating her disparately compared to her similarly situated coworkers based on Race?
2. Did Defendant violate Plaintiff's rights under RCW 49.60 by retaliating against her after Plaintiff reported to a coworker that her supervisor, Ivette Martinez-Morales, made a comment that Plaintiff believed was offensive based on race?
3. Was Ms. Madry's race a substantial factor in Defendant, King County's, decision to terminate her employment in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination?
4. Was Ms. Madry's alleged opposition to an alleged discriminatory statement made by, Ivette Martinez-Morales, a “substantial factor” in King ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.