The Honorable Marianne C. Spearman
Hearing Date: December 9, 2016
Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.

1
2
3
4
5
6

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

7
8

AMY SHOBLOM, individually , DIANA NEFF
individually, LOU CABALLERO, individually,

9

No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,
10
v.
11
12

KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of
Washington State,
Defendant.

13
14

I. INTRODUCTION
15
Plaintiffs Neff, Shoblom and Caballero file this response in opposition to Defendant’s
16
Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintffs’ have presented evidence of material issues of

17
disputed fact, as set forth herein, such that summary judgment cannot be granted in this case.
18
II.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

19
20

A.

Sheriff Urquhart’s abusive and disparaging remarks about women span the
decades:

21

Sheriff Urquhart, as the head of the KCSO, has a history of making disparaging and

22

discriminatory remarks about women that spans the decades. He has referred to Former Sheriff

23
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

Sue Rahr as a “bitch.” 1 Urquhart has called the women who lodged hostile work environment

2

complaints against him as a sergeant, “crybabies.” 2

3

provided KCSO required counseling to him as part of a hostile work environment

4

investigation and performance improvement plan—a “fat slob.” 3 Former IIU Commander DJ

5

Nesel testified that Sheriff Urquhart made disparaging remarks about women on such a regular

6

basis that he could not even begin to count the number of times Urquhart made such

7

statements. 4 Sheriff Urquhart referred to the three female detectives from the special assault

8

unit who brought successfully brought suit against the department, “those women.” 5 He also

9

referred to Sgt. Neff and Sgt. Larson as “those women at Shoreline.” 6

10

Urquhart called the woman -- who

Captain Nesel

described the Sheriff as follows: “I feel there are some deeply rooted issues” with women. 7

11

The expressed disdain and contempt of women by Sheriff Urquhart is not fleeting, but

12

rather has an enduring quality. Plaintiffs’ expert D.P. Van Blaircom opines: “It is my opinion

13

that an open practice of disparaging women, over a period of decades, can only create a

14

culture of disrespect and hostility toward women in the department.” 8

15

B.

Diana Neff is a 52 year old, gay woman. 9 She has been employed by the King County

16
17

Plaintiff Sergeant Diana Neff:

Sheriff’s Office (KCSO) for 29 years and has held the rank of Sergeant for 16 years. 10

18
19
20
21
22
23

1

Dec. Larson, 21-22. Plaintiffs refer to the paragraph number for each declaration.

2

Ex. 17, Dec. Syson.

3

Dec.Larson, 19.

4

Ex.3, Dep Nesel at 137-146, 157-159.

5

Id.

6

Dec.Larson, 21-22.

7

Ex.3, Dep Nesel at 146.

8

Dec.Van Blaircom at 14, 14a.

9

Dec.Neff, 1.
Id. at 1, 1d.

10

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

1.

Sexual orientation discrimination and hostile work environment:

2

Throughout her 29 years with the KCSO, Neff has been subjected to a hostile work

3

environment and discrimination based upon her sexual orientation including: a male superior

4

stating “Well, you’re either gay, or a housewife wanting to be a secretary,” about her choice to

5

become a cop; Neff estimates that she has been asked over 200 times whether she was “gay”

6

by male KCSO employees; a male detective made up a story about Neff and another gay

7

deputy being involved in a relationship; a Major asked of a gay female employee who married

8

her partner, “so which one of you is the man or the husband?”; a poster was put up at

9

Shoreline police department after Neff was forced out that made fun of transgendered people;

10

Neff was called “a gay crusader”; on countless occasions coworkers made gay slurs,

11

homophobic jokes, and make remarks that are generally hostile to gay people. 11 Neff did not

12

observe that heterosexual men were treated in this same manner. Id.

13

2.

Gender based discrimination and hostile work environment:

14

Neff has witnessed and experienced discrimination and harassment of herself and other

15

women based upon gender over her years with the KCSO, and most recently she suffered

16

harassment and discrimination as a Sergeant under the command of Major Sean Ledford. 12

17

When Ledford took over the command of Shoreline in 2012, Sgt. Neff had been the

18

Sergeant of the Special Emphasis Team (SET) Unit. 13 She had held that prestigious position

19

for 6 years. Neff was the only female Sergeant of KCSO’s elite SET units. Id. There were

20

only six SET Units in the entire department. As Sergeant of the SET Unit, Neff worked on

21
22
23

11

Dec.Neff at 2a-2l.
Dec.Neff at 3, 3a-3r
13
Dec.Neff at 1e.
12

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

undercover operations, stings, working with federal agencies. Id. Neff had every intention of

2

working as SET Sergeant at Shoreline until the day she retired. She loved her job. Id.

3

Prior to Ledford taking over as the Chief of Shoreline, he had been “counseled” for

4

failing to take action to stop the sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation of three

5

female detectives in the KCSO Special Assault Unit. 14 The three female detectives in the

6

Special Assault Unit filed suit, and ultimately settled their lawsuit for $1 million. 15 The

7

perpetrators of the sexual harassment — Sgt. Tony Provenzo and Sgt. Paul Mahlum — did not

8

even receive a slap on the wrist for their conduct. 16

9

When Ledford took over at Shoreline, he continued to both ignore and participate in

10

the creation of a hostile work environment for women, and engage in discriminatory and

11

retaliatory acts directed at women who lodged complaints about mistreatment. Ledford’s

12

gender based harassment and discrimination of Neff included:

13

interacted with women at the precinct; Ledford purposefully avoided having contact with

14

Neff; Ledford’s conversations with Neff were forced and curt; Ledford rarely if ever asked

15

what my unit (the SET unit) was working on; Ledford watched and did not intervene when a

16

citizen heckled and made false accusations against Neff and Sgt. Katie Larson; Ledford forced

17

Neff to go through paperwork hoops and hurdles to get training for her unit approved, and did

18

not require the same of a male seeking approval of training; Ledford and Captain Strathy made

19

sexist and discriminatory statements about the physical appearance of a female deputy

20

(Deputy Leona Obstler); Ledford forced Obstler out of the position she had held for years and

21

replaced her with a man; Ledford purposefully turned the thermostat down to an

Ledford rarely if ever

22
23

14

Ex. 19, Pengry Dep at 17-18.
Ex. 20 to Kays Dec.
16
Ex.B to Van Blaircom Dec.
15

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

uncomfortable level after Sgt. Larson and Neff had complained about it being too cold;

2

Ledford referred to his wife as “a hag” in front of male deputies; Ledford made disparaging

3

and untruthful remarks about Neff and Larson’s work performance in Shoreline; Ledford

4

purposefully excluded a female detective from a key meeting; Ledford and Strathy made

5

disparaging remarks about the physical appearance of an older female support staffer; Ledford

6

rarely if ever spoke with Neff and Larson, but would regularly have extended chats, and

7

conversations in his office with male employees. 17
3.

8

Additional female employees are subjected to discrimination and a hostile
work environment by Ledford:

9
Neff was not the only woman at Shoreline who was discriminated against and endured
10
a hostile work environment created by Ledford. Sgt. Katie Larson, Leona Obstler, Victoria
11
Crabtree and Julie Blessum each experienced gender based discrimination and hostility in the
12
13

workplace by Ledford. 18 Sgt. Katie Larson, like Sgt. Neff, had been working in Shoreline for
over 9 years at the time Ledford took over. 19 Sgt. Larson experienced acts of hostility, and

14
discrimination from Ledford, including: Ledford had very little interactions with women
15
employees in the precinct, and in contrast regularly chatted up male employees; Ledford went
16
out of his way not to have interactions with women; Ledford ignored Sgt. Larson for three
17
weeks; Ledford forced tenured women from Shoreline or their positions (Larson, Neff,
18
Obstler, Magan) and replaced each with a man; Ledford lied to Sgt. Larson as a way to force
19
out a tenured male sergeant and Leona Obslter; Ledford disparaged Deputy Leona Obstler;
20
Ledford saddled Larson with additional work, and her male replacement was not required to
21
do the same additional work; Ledford announced Sgt. Larson would be leaving Shoreline
22
23

17
18

Dec. Neff at 3a-3r.
Dec. Larson, 6-8; Dec. Neff, 3; Ex. 18, Blessum dep..

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

before she even had a job to go to, and Sgt. Neff’s departure was announced at the same time

2

and she did not have a job to go to. 20

3

The evidence of Ledford’s other discriminatory and harassing actions directed at other

4

women in the workplace is corroborative of Neff’s claims, and also direct and circumstantial

5

evidence supporting Neff’s claims of discrimination and harassment based upon gender.
4.

6

Protected activities: Neff and Larson report Ledford’s hostile work
environment and discrimination:

7
In approximately the summer months of 2013, Sgts. Neff and Larson met with then
8
Chief Deputy Anne Kirkpatrick to report Ledford’s hostility towards and discrimination of
9

women. 21 At that first meeting both Larson and Neff described the conduct of Ledford toward

10
them, as set forth above, and stated their belief that he was treating women differently than
11
men. Id. Chief Deputy Kirkpatrick told Neff and Larson she would have a follow up meeting
12
with them. Id.

Kirkpatrick did not report to Human Resources or IIU the concerns of

13
discrimination and hostility reported by Neff and Larson.
14
At the second meeting in August 2013, Larson and Neff reported again the misconduct
15
by Ledford; the two women brought notes documenting Ledford’s discriminator conduct. Id.
16
Chief Deputy Kirkpatrick did not take the notes presented to her by Larson and Neff. Instead
17

she said: your only option here is to “fall in line or transfer.” 22 Chief Deputy Kirkpatrick made

18
19
20
21

19

Dec. Larson, 1e.
Dec. Larson, 3, 4a-b, 5a-g, 6a-l, 7a-g.
21
Dec. Neff at 4a-4b, 19-21, 5a-5b; Larson at 9, 9a-f. Neff and Larson had both lodged objections repeatedly to
Ledford and Captain Strathy’s discriminatory remarks about Obstler and support staff’s appearance, and the
mistreatment of Obstler generally. Ledford and Strathy did nothing in the face of these objections/protected
activities..
22
Dec. Neff, 5a.
20

22
23

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 6 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

very clear to Neff and Larson: “..we are not moving him [Ledford].” Id. The message she

2

was delivering to Neff and Larson was coming directly from Urquhart. 23

3

Following this meeting, Neff realized that her complaints of discrimination would not

4

be addressed. 24 The Sheriff’s message was clear: leave Shoreline. Neff was being forced out

5

of a job she loved, as was Larson. Neff was being forced out of the SET Unit position, and the

6

only job available was a patrol sergeant position for Maple Valley Police Department. 25 Neff

7

applied for the position. Id. But before she had even received an invitation to interview for the

8

position Ledford announced that Neff was leaving Shoreline. Id. During the same meeting he

9

announced that Larson too was leaving Shoreline, even though she had no job lined up. 26 It

10

was also announced at the same meeting that both women would be replaced by men. Id.

11

Ledford, with the backing of the Sheriff, had forced Neff and Larson out of Shoreline, and had

12

succeeded in removing all women from positions of authority and replacing them with men.

13

When Ledford announced the departure of Neff and Larson from Shoreline, Neff was

14

not at the meeting. 27 A few weeks earlier a KCSO deputy, Mitch Wright, had been arrested by

15

federal agents for criminal wrongdoing. 28 Sgt. Neff began to hear from rank and file deputies

16

that her sudden departure from Shoreline was linked to Mitch Wright’s criminal

17

wrongdoing. 29

18

After Neff was forced out of Shoreline, she ended up working as a patrol Sergeant at

19

Maple Valley effective October 1, 2013. Neff knew that her dream of working as a SET

20
21

23

Dec. Neff at 5b, Dec.Larson at 9a.
Dec. Neff at 5b,-5d, 6. Dec. Larson at 9b-9e.
25
Dec.Neff at 8-18.
26
Dec.Larson at 10-12.
27
Dec.Neff at 9.
28
Dec.Neff at 7, 14-18.
29
Id.
24

22
23

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 7 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

Sergeant till the day she retired from the department would never be realized. She knew that

2

the rumors were swirling around that she was somehow connected to the fall out from the

3

arrest of Mitch Wright. Neff was still so despondent, and emotionally distressed by the hostile

4

and discriminatory actions of Ledford, and being forced out of Shoreline that she met with

5

Human Resources and lodged a formal complaint on October 16, 2013. 30

6

C.

Retaliation of Neff by Ledford and Sheriff Urquhart:

7

Ledford’s 7 month “off the book” investigation into Neff: Ledford was notified of

8

the fact that he was under investigation by IIU for Sgt. Neff’s complaint of discrimination and

9

a hostile work environment. that she had made to Human Resources. Despite receiving that

10

notification, Ledford commenced an “off the book” investigation into Sgt. Neff for alleged

11

policy violations related to Neff’s bookkeeping practices while Sgt. of the Shoreline SET

12

Unit. 31 Ledford directed Sgt. Chad DeVore (the man who replaced Neff) to undertake the

13

secret investigation while Ledford supervised and oversaw it. The off the books investigation

14

commenced by Ledford lasted 7 months. During that 7 month time period, IIU was not

15

notified of the investigation; nor was Sgt. Neff.
D.P. Van Blaircom opines about Ledford’s investigation:

16

....the “off the books”

17

investigation into Sgt. Neff, supervised by the very person she accused of discriminatory

18

conduct, would be an act of retaliation for Neff lodging a complaint against him.”32 It also

19
20
21
22
23

30

Neff at 22. Neff engaged in additional protected activities when she was: interviewed during the EEO/IIU
complaint investigating Ledford’s discrimination of her (March 7, 2014); filed her tort claim setting forth the
factual basis for her reasonable belief supporting her complaints of discrimination, hostile work environment and
retaliation (September 8, 2014); and when she filed her lawsuit setting forth the same (April 22, 2015). Neff at
23-26.
31
Ex. 2B. Dep. Nesel.
32

Dec. Van Blaircom at 9g.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 8 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

violates basic police practices and “creates the opportunity for command staff to retaliate

2

against subordinates.” Id.
Sheriff Urquhart engages in retaliation against Neff:

3

At the conclusion of

4

Ledford’s 7 month investigation into Sgt. Neff, and while the EEO complaint against Ledford

5

was still outstanding, Ledford apprised the Sheriff and IIU Commander DJ Nesel of the fruits

6

of his 7 month investigation. 33 The Sheriff’s response to the Ledford briefing was “oh good,

7

we’ve got something on her [Neff].” 34 The Sheriff then personally filed a complaint against

8

Sgt. Neff for allegedly violating department policies. Id. The complaint alleged a “major”

9

investigation, which subjected Neff to discipline, including termination.

10

Van Blaircom opines: “…this statement by Sheriff Urquhart is evidence that he was

11

using the “off the books” investigation and IIU investigation into Neff to more probably than

12

not retaliate against her for bringing the discrimination complaint against Ledford.” 35

13

Sheriff Urquhart and Ledford orchestrate a criminal investigation into Sgt. Neff:

14

While the Sheriff’s complaint against Neff was being investigated by IIU, the Sheriff ordered

15

Sgt. Neff to speak with an FBI agent concerning Mitch Wright. 36 The email that the Sheriff

16

sent Neff indicated that Neff was not under investigation. 37 This was a lie. Little did Sgt. Neff

17

know, but Ledford, DeVore and Urquhart were working with the FBI to have Neff criminally

18

investigated for allegedly aiding Mitch Wright in his crimes. 38

19
20
21

33

Dec. Neff, 30d.
Dec. Neff, 30d.
35
Dec. Van Blaircom, 9h.
36
Dec. Neff , 31, 31a-31c, Ex. B.
37
Id.
34

22
23

38

Ex. 2B, Dep. Nesel.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 9 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

Damages suffered by Neff: Neff has suffered emotional and psychological distress as

2

a result of the hostile work environment, discrimination and retaliation. 39 She has suffered

3

damage to her professional reputation, lost wages, now forever under a cloud of suspicion

4

from the Mitch Wright arrest, and was forced out of an exclusive assignment where she was

5

the only woman in charge of an undercover unit. Id.

6

D.

Plaintiff Amy Shoblom:

7

Plaintiff Amy Shoblom is a 35 year old married woman. 40 Shoblom worked as a

8

KCSO deputy from 2006 through 2015, when she was fired in retaliation for bringing a

9

complaint of sexual harassment against her superior. 41

10

Shoblom worked at KCSO’s Metro

unit and under the supervision of Sergeant Dewey Burns. 42

11

As a Sergeant, Dewey Burns would approve/disapprove: Shoblom’s work schedule;

12

her time off requests; her vacation requests; her overtime requests; her sick leave requests; her

13

reports; the locations or areas she worked; who she could partner with; and author and have

14

input on performance evaluations. 43

15

The Metro unit is relatively small, heavily dominated by male deputies, and Shoblom

16

was the only woman who worked a given shift. 44 Shoblom repeatedly had to prove herself to

17

her male colleagues, and prove to them that she was able and “tough” enough to do the job. 45

18

Shoblom is small in stature. Id. Every day was a test at Metro, Shoblom could not lodge

19

complaints to superiors whenever a male deputy made a crude or sexist remark because to do

20

so would lead her male colleagues to not trust her. Id. As a woman in law enforcement

21
39

22
23

Dec. Neff, 32, 32a-j.
Dec. Shoblom, 1.
41
Id, 2.
42
Id., 1.
43
Id, 5; Ex. 5.
44
Id, 8.
40

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 10 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

Shoblom had to be “one of the guys” in order to gain the respect of her male colleagues. 46 On

2

countless occasions Shoblom heard her male KCSO colleagues make demeaning remarks

3

about her abilities, her capabilities, or about women in general. 47 Shoblom brushed off,

4

ignored, laughed off, or went along with remarks in order to gain acceptance in the male

5

dominated culture that is law enforcement. Id. Shoblom believed that if she reported these

6

crude or sexist remarks to human resources or her superiors that her male colleagues would

7

not respect her and view her as weak. Id.
“…the last thing that you can do as female officer is have your male
colleagues think you are weak. As a woman, I had to appear tough, and like I
could take anything that was dished my way.” 48

8
9
10

Plaintiffs’ expert, Susan Jones, a retired police chief who experienced sexual harassment
11
throughout her career in law enforcement, describes sexual harassment in law enforcement
12
like this:
13
…some male officers say sexually rude and even crude things to female
employees because such behavior is tolerated by their supervisors. It is not
unusual for some female employees to put up with it so that they can “fit in.”
Overall, females don’t want to be labeled as “trouble-makers”, by
complaining about male officers. …..When that behavior is left unchecked,
it becomes emotionally intolerable, it foreseeably results in complaints that
leave female employees isolated, ridiculed, and feeling unsafe, they have to
rely on their male counterparts as backup in emergency situations, which can
be a matter of life or death. It is my opinion based upon my experience that
Deputy Shoblom did not initially report Sergeant Burns because she was
attempting to “fit in” to the new Metro environment. She did not want to be
known as a “trouble-maker.” Only when it became unbearable did she come
forward. 49

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

45

Id.
Id., 3.
47
Id.
48
Id.
49
Dec. Jones, 14.
46

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 11 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

Shoblom experienced the following sexual harassment from Sgt. Burns at roll calls:

2

Burns asked Shoblom who she was “sleeping with” or “slept with” multiple times; Burns told

3

Shoblom “don’t sleep with” a fellow deputy; Burns accused Shoblom of “sleeping with” a

4

deputy. Id. Burns discussed his personal sex life in the workplace; Burns discussed having sex

5

with women and his sexual exploits; Burns talked about breasts; Burns discussed how much

6

he had sex or how his partner “liked it”; Burns bragged about having sex with an AMR

7

employee while he was on duty; during roll call Burns created a “bet” about who would cheat

8

on their spouse first; Burns drew a penis with hand sanitizer on Shoblom’s patrol car. 50 Burns

9

also sent sexualized text messages to Shoblom. 51
Defendant County’s brief evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of sexual

10
11

harassment in law enforcement. 52

12

demeaned by Sgt. Burns’ sexual harassment of her. 53 Eventually she reported the sexual

13

harassment to her superior, Sgt. Lou Caballero. Id. Caballero reported the complaint to his

14

superior. Id. After she complained Shoblom was interviewed for hours by IIU and it was

15

made clear to Shoblom that she was the one on trial. 54

Shoblom was disgusted, humiliated, degraded and

16

1.

Protected Activities by Shoblom:

17

Shoblom engaged in the following “protected activities”: Shoblom reported the sexual

18

harassment to Sgt. Caballero; Shoblom testified in an IIU/EEO investigation into the sexual

19

harassment; Shoblom testified in two additional IIU/EEO investigations into allegations

20

lodged against her by KCSO after she reported sexual harassment, and she voiced her

21
22
23

50

Dec. Shoblom, 5, 6, 6a-6d, 7-10.
Id. 9, 10.
52
See generally Dec. Jones.
51

53
54

Dec. Shoblom, 12.
Dec. Shoblom at 13.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 12 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

objection stating each was retaliation for her sexual harassment complaint; Shoblom filed her

2

tort claim; and Shoblom filed her lawsuit. 55 In each of these instances, Shoblom voiced her

3

opposition to sexual harassment, discrimination and or retaliation she was being subjected

4

to. 56

5

2.

6

After Shoblom reported sexual harassment by Burns, she was the subject of two

7

different IIU complaints. The Sheriff’s Chief of Staff, a civilian, Chris Berringer filed an IIU

8

complaint against Shoblom after reviewing evidence from the IIU investigation into Burns’

9

sexual harassment of Shoblom. 57 The result of the Berringer complaint was that Shoblom was

10

Sheriff Urquhart, and Chris Berringer retaliate against Shoblom:

disciplined by the Sheriff with 20 days off without pay. Id.
Van Blaircom opines:

11

“To permit a civilian to have access to pending internal

12

investigations, and to cull through evidence looking for violations of policy by employees

13

undermines the integrity of the IIU process, and gives rise to claims of retaliation.” 58

14

Berringer’s actions were “more probably than not acts of retaliation against Shoblom for

15

coming forward with a complaint of sexual harassment.” Id.

16

Together Shoblom and Caballero were subjected to an investigation where the Sheriff

17

himself was involved in the investigation, and had contact with the complaining witness.

18

Shoblom witnessed a verbal exchange between a METRO bus drive and Sgt. Caballero during

19

a “night owl” bus check. 59 Shoblom heard the METRO driver yelling at Sgt. Caballero, and

20
21
22
23

55

Dec. Shoblom.

56

Dec. Shoblom at 12-16..

57

Dec. Shoblom at 17, 17a-17b.

58

Dec. Van Blaircom at 9d.

59

Dec. Shoblom at 18, 18a-l, and Exhibits thereto.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 13 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

later documented the exchange on her department lap top. Id. She did not produce the

2

document until asked by an IIU investigator some months later.

3

Shoblom was initially interviewed as a witness in the matter of the METRO driver

4

incident. At the conclusion of the interview, the IIU investigator (Frances Carlson) gave

5

Shoblom a hug and told her “don’t worry about it.” Id. Several months later, Shoblom was

6

accused of lying during that IIU investigation about the verbal exchange between Caballero

7

and the METRO driver. Id.
During a second interview by IIU investigator Frances Carlson, Carlson produced a

8
9

video of the exchange. Id.

She had never informed Shoblom that the bus driver was

10

surreptitiously recording the exchange that evening. Id. Shoblom felt “set up” by IIU. Id. At

11

the conclusion of the interview, Sgt. Carlson apologized to Shoblom and stated “she was just

12

doing her job.” Id.

13

Carlson’s investigative report indicates that the Sheriff involved himself in the

14

METRO bus driver investigation, and that the Sheriff had personal contact with the METRO

15

bus driver. 60 Shoblom and Caballero were both fired by the Sheriff as a result of this

16

investigation, but when the Sheriff’s act of terminating them is viewed in light of comparators,

17

and the fact that he has repeatedly ordered that men NOT be investigated for similar behavior,

18

there is clear evidence that Shoblom and Caballero were fired in retaliation for bringing

19

forward a sexual harassment complaint.

20

E.

Plaintiff Lou Caballero.

21

In September 2014, Plaintiff Lou Caballero was serving as a sergeant in the KCSO

22

Metro Division. At that time, Caballero was a fifteen year veteran of KCSO with a decorated

23
60

Dec. Shoblom, Ex. B.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 14 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

career. During this time period, Caballero worked in conjunction with one other Metro

2

Division officer, Sergeant Dewey Burns.

3

deputies, but shared equal supervisory control over all four deputies – regardless of their

4

respective sergeant assignments. Plaintiff Shoblom was one of the two deputies assigned to

5

Caballero during the September 2014 period.

6

Shoblom was receiving numerous text messages that caused her to be visibly distressed.

7

Caballero asked who was texting her, and she stated that it was Sergeant Burns.

Caballero and Burns were each assigned two

On the evening of September 17, 2014,

61

8

Protected Activity: Later, Deputy Shoblom was still clearly upset, and Caballero

9

pulled her aside to ask what was wrong. Deputy Shoblom informed Caballero that Burns had

10

been acting inappropriately towards her and then said something along the lines of: “I am done

11

with him acting this way towards me. I cannot take this anymore. He cannot do this to me.”

12

The next morning, Caballero contacted his superior, Captain Williams.

13

Caballero told Captain Williams that Caballero felt Shoblom’ s complaints were serious and

14

that Burns had acted inappropriately and was harassing Shoblom. Captain Williams informed

15

Caballero that he would look into this matter. 62

That evening,

16

Protected Activity: Several days later, Caballero received an email from Captain

17

Williams asking Caballero to submit an Officer Report detailing what Caballero reported

18

during their meeting on Thursday, September 18, 2014. Caballero obeyed Captain Williams’

19

request, authored a two-page report, and provided this report to Captain Williams. Of note,

20

prior to reporting Deputy Shoblom’s complaints in September 2014, Sergeant Caballero had

21
22
23

61

Dec. Caballero, 6-7.

62

Dec. Caballero, 8-9.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 15 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

never been the subject of a formal internal affairs investigation in his fifteen years of service

2

as a KCSO officer. 63

3

Protected Activity: Caballero had begun to detect a noticeable change in how KCSO

4

superiors interacted with him – specifically, they became standoffish, unfriendly, and were

5

reluctant to communicate with him. Several days later, Caballero reported for his A-150

6

interview to give testimony in the Shoblom sexual harassment investigation. Upon learning

7

that Caballero had exchanged text messages with Burns, the interview panel demanded (under

8

threat of termination) that he turn over his personal cell phone to be downloaded in its entirety.

9

Despite the unjustified and intrusive nature of this request, Caballero feared for his job and

10

complied with the request. 64

11

Adverse Employment Action: at the time of his A-150 interview, Caballero was

12

informed that his personal phone data was needed for the specific purpose of investigating

13

Shoblom’s complaint. This representation was false: over the next several months, KCSO

14

meticulously combed through Caballero’s private text message conversations in order to create

15

the bases for numerous complaints and internal affairs investigations against Caballero.

16

KCSO made false representations about the use of Caballero’s private communications data,

17

and conducted a multi-month witch hunt to create and pursue new complaints and

18

investigations against Caballero.

19

reported Shoblom’s complaints of harassment regarding Burns to KCSO superiors. 65

These retaliatory actions started shortly after Caballero

20

Adverse Employment Action: in August 2014, Metro Transit bus driver, Gregory

21

Allen, filed a complaint with KCSO regarding the inappropriate behavior of an “unidentified”

22
23

63

Dec. Caballero, 10-11.

64

Dec. Caballero, 12.

65

Dec. Caballero, 15.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 16 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

Metro Unit sergeant. When questioned, Caballero informed KCSO that he was not on-duty at

2

the time of this incident and knew nothing about it. KCSO records corroborated this fact. A

3

year later, and after Caballero reported the sexual harassment of Shoblom – Caballero was

4

subjected to an IIU investigation regarding Mr. Allen’s complaint against an “unidentified”

5

deputy. Urquhart told the public that Caballero was the subject of this investigation. KCSO

6

purposefully and maliciously opened this unsubstantiated investigation as a retaliatory

7

response to Caballero’s reporting of Sergeant Burns’ harassment. Not surprisingly, Caballero

8

was found to have had no involvement in the August 2014 incident. 66 But the damage was

9

done by the Sheriff.

10

Adverse Employment Action: as described above, Caballero – along with Deputy

11

Shoblom – was subjected to a retaliatory investigation regarding Metro bus employee, Kelvin

12

Kirkpatrick. 67 As a result, on May 31, 2015, Caballero was placed on administrative leave.

13

Despite being placed on leave, KCSO continued to instigate retaliatory – and ultimately

14

unsubstantiated – investigations. Specifically, KCSO opened an additional internal affairs

15

investigation on the premise that he had not followed the proper protocol for obtaining a

16

department rifle and second badge.

17

determined to be unfounded. 68

Both accusations were false, and also, eventually

18

Adverse Employment Action & Damages: in August 2015, Caballero was

19

discharged from KCSO after sixteen years of service. This discharge was the result of months

20

of retaliatory complaints and investigations that began immediately after Caballero reported

21

Sergeant Burns’ harassment of Deputy Shoblom. Caballero has suffered ongoing humiliation,

22
23

66

Dec. Caballero, 16.

67

Dec. Caballero, 17. See discussion generally in Shoblom section.

68

Dec. Caballero, 19.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 17 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

embarrassment, emotional and psychological distress, irreparable damage to his reputation,

2

and significant economic losses as a result of this retaliatory discharge. 69

3

F.

Comparators as evidence of retaliation of Shoblom and Caballero:
As it relates to both Shoblom and Caballero, there is direct evidence of retaliatory

4
5

animus on the part of the Sheriff.

A review of past investigations by IIU and discipline, if

6

any, imposed when an employee was accused of making a false statement reveals that the

7

firing Caballero and Shoblom was retaliatory in nature. 70 Consider the following:

8

Sgt. Rob Dorman. 2006. False statement/serious misconduct. Sustained. Demoted to

9

Deputy. Deputies Greg Victor and Marsalisi. 2007. Making false fraudulent statements.

10

Non-Sustained on both deputies. Deputy Joseph Wright. 2008. Making false statement (non-

11

sustained); violation of GOM (sustained.) Corrective counseling memo. Deputy Kris Kizer.

12

2009. False statement (non-sustained). Memo of training/counseling. Deputy Russell

13

Wolfe.2006. Sent inappropriate emails to others at work. Corrective Counseling memo.

14

Marshal Wildey. 2009. False statement. Alleged to have been conducting personal business

15

while on duty (sustained). (sustained). Suspended 7 days. Deputy Ben Johnson.

16

2009.Violation GOM and use of authority (both sustained); false statement (non-sustained).

17

Changed to 5 day suspension through negotiation with Guild. Deputy Kevin Savage. 2009.

18

Excessive force (non-sustained); Appropriate use of authority (Sustained); Courtesy

19

(sustained); entry into primary rez (sustained); policy statement (sustained); false statement

20

(non-sustained). 3 day suspension. Training and reading assignments. Deputy Jeff Hancock.

21

2009. Criminal conduct; conduct unbecoming; willful violation of rules and policies

22

(sustained); false and fraudulent statement (non sustained). 1 day without pay. Deputy Brad

23
69

Dec. Caballero, 20-21.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 18 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

Ray. 2010. False fraudulent statements (non-sustained). Non-sustained. Deputy Steven

2

Wright. 2010. Use of authority (sustained); false statement and performance standards (both

3

non-sustained). 10 day suspension. Deputy Edwin Johnson. 2011. Absence from duty

4

without leave (sustained); false statement (non-sustained). Written reprimand. Boyd

5

Baumgartner – Fingerprint tech. 2009. False statement.

6

Deputy Mark Lohse-Miranda. 2012. Dishonesty/performance strd. Suspended for 1 day,

7

transferred from graveyards to a day patrol; performance improvement plan. Deputy Scott

8

Allen. 2013. False statement. Non-sustained.

No punishment, not sustained.

9

When the terminations of Shoblom and Caballero are viewed in light of the

10

aforementioned comparators there is substantial evidence of that the Sheriff retaliated against

11

the two for bringing a sexual harassment complaint.

12

G.

Evidence of retaliation and discrimination: Urquhart uses IIU investigations as a
means to retaliate against plaintiffs and other women:

13
There is a common theme across each of the plaintiffs’ claims, after lodging a
14
complaint of discriminatory conduct, each was subjected to IIU investigations which tarnished
15
their reputations, and in the case of Caballero and Shoblom, was used as a means to fire them
16
in retaliation for lodging a discrimination complaint. IIU Captain Anderson testified that
17
Urquhart involved himself in IIU investigations to the point that he was “shaping the
18

outcome.” 71 Van Blaircom opines that this “score settling” was evidence of retaliation on the

19
part of Urquhart:
20
Several of the examples given by Captain Anderson shared common elements
— that Sheriff Urquhart held a grudge against an accused employee or that the
accused employee had exposed a problem within the KCSO — and the sheriff

21
22
23

70
71

Dec. Kays, Ex. 11.
Ex.2B, Dep. Anderson, Vol I, generally.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 19 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 was using the IIU investigation to get back at the employee, to retaliate or
settle a score. 72

1
2

Other non-parties have experienced similar acts of retaliation by the Sheriff through his
3
abuse of IIU to retaliate against them for bringing forward WLAD complaints, and their
4
experiences are corroboration for, and evidence of, retaliation by the Sheriff against the
5
Plaintiffs.
6
Belinda Ferguson Paredes was repeatedly investigated by IIU after filing a lawsuit
7

against the department. 73 Belinda was weak from the emotional stress and distress of years of

8
sexual harassment, and after filing and settling her lawsuit, she was targeted for repeated IIU
9

investigations. 74

10
Deputy Mary Syson was one of several woman who lodged a hostile work
11

environment complaint against Urquhart when he was a Sergeant. 75 After Urquhart became

12
Sheriff, Syson has experienced a hostile work environment, retaliation and discrimination in
13

the workplace from her male superiors. 76 After Syson lodged WLAD based complaints

14
against her superiors, including identifying the Sheriff as engaging in conduct in violation of
15

WLAD, Syson was retaliated against by the Sheriff . 77

16
The Sheriff personally lodged an IIU complaint against Neff, which was so baseless
17

that it had to be “rescinded.” 78 This is unheard of in IIU, complaints are not “rescinded” but

18
19
20
21
22
23

72

Dec. Van Blaircom at 9a.
Dec. Belinda Ferguson Paredes and Ex..
74
Dec. Luitgaarden.
75
Dec. Syson.
76
Id.
73

77

Id.

78

Dec. Larson at 15, 15a-f.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 20 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

rather unfounded, exonerated, sustained. 79 This unusual categorization of the complaint is

2

further evidence of retaliation. 80

3

H.

Evidence of Urquhart’s discriminatory treatment of women: Women are
investigated by IIU, men who engage in similar or even criminal conduct are not.

4
Sheriff Urquhart has engaged in a pattern of treating male employees accused of
5
WLAD violations favorably — encouraging telephone calls, ordering investigations not to be
6
conducted, and ordering that misconduct not be documented — while subjecting complainants
7
to repeated IIU investigations as a means to discriminate and retaliate against them.
8
Criminal Rape accusation against Sheriff not document nor investigated by IIU:
9
the Sheriff was accused of rape by a woman, and the complaint was brought to the attention of
10

IIU Commander Jesse Anderson and Sgt. Mike Mullinax.81 KCSO policies dictate that a

11
criminal complaint against a member must be both documented and investigated by IIU. Id.
12
Anderson and Mullinex brought the accusation to the attention of the Sheriff, who ordered
13
them not to investigate the rape allegation and not to document it. Id. Both orders were in
14
violation of KCSO policies. Id. Both Anderson and Mullinex testified that they believed the
15
allegation should be thoroughly investigated, and disagreed with the orders given. Id. The
16
practical effect of Urquhart’s orders was to not investigate a rape allegation lodged against a
17
KCSO member (the male Sheriff) and to hide the allegation from public disclosure. Id.
18

Urquhart is fond of stating that the rules of the department did not apply to him. 82 But in this

19
instance his order to IIU NOT to investigate the rape and NOT to document the rape is further
20
21
22
23

79

Id.

80

Accord, Dec. Van Blaircom at 9g-9h.
Ex.1, Dep. Anderson, Dep Mullinex. The name of the complaining witness is redacted, and initials have been
used to preserve her privacy.
82
Dec. Larson, 14j-14k.
81

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 21 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

evidence that under Urquhart’s department men — even those accused of rape — receive

2

favorable treatment from his IIU, compared to those who bring forward WLAD complaints. 83

3

Sheriff Orders that Ledford not be investigated for lying to IIU: IU Captain Nesel

4

and Sgt. Mullinex both wanted to investigate Major Ledford for lying during an IIU

5

investigation. 84 This is the very allegation that was lodged against Shoblom and Caballero and

6

for which they were fired by the Sheriff, very publicly. Plaintiff’s expert Van Blaircom

7

describes the Sheriff’s order as evidence of “favoritism to Major Ledford, and discriminatory

8

application of the rules and policies of the department. The conclusion would be that

9

Urquhart’s friends don’t get investigated but those he holds a grudge against, or wants to

10

target do get investigated.” 85 Van Blaircom further opines that when Urquhart orders IIU to

11

not investigate Ledford (a male) for lying in an IIU investigation, and yet fired Shoblom and

12

Caballero for allegedly doing the same thing, “the actions of the Sheriff were more probably

13

than not done in retaliation” for Caballero and Shoblom reporting sexual harassment. 86

14

Sheriff telephones Burns after sexual harassment complaint lodged and promises

15

to hire him back: After Caballero and Shoblom complained about Sgt. Burns’ sexual

16

harassment, Burns was placed on Administrative Leave. 87 On or about the same time, Burns

17

received a telephone call from Urquhart stating: “this conversation never happened” and

18

telling Burns “he will be back to work quickly.” Id. Urquhart had clearly made up his mind

19

about the complaint of sexual harassment even before the investigation commenced: it didn’t

20

happen. Urquhart’s telephone call is further evidence of discriminatory treatment of those who

21
22
23

83

Dec. Van Blaircom, 9j-9k stating that Urquhart “cannot hold himself above the law or the policies and
procedures of the department.”
84
Ex.2a, Dep. Mullinex, p.35-42.
85
86

Dec. Van Blaircom, 9f.
Dec. Van Blaircom, 11-12.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 22 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

bring forward WLAD based complaints. In this second phone call the Sheriff told Burns that

2

he would “hire him back before he [Urquhart] retired.” 88

3

It is clear from these examples, as well as the Plaintiffs’ own experiences, that

4

Urquhart has engaged in a pattern of discriminatory treatment and retaliation, of those who

5

bring forward WLAD complaints. Urquhart orders that investigations into Ledford lying to

6

investigators not be undertaken by IIU. In contrast, he fires Shoblom and Caballero for

7

allegedly engaging in the same conduct that he ordered NOT be investigated. The only

8

difference between is that Shoblom and Caballero came forward with WLAD complaints.

9

Neither Shoblom nor Caballero received personal phone calls from the Sheriff when they were

10

put on administrative leave telling them that the he “had their back”, nor were they told that

11

the Sheriff would re-hire them. Sgt. Neff was investigated by the man she accused of WLAD

12

violations, and subjected to a criminal investigation spurred on by the same man. And yet,

13

when the Sheriff is accused of raping a woman, he orders that the complaint not be

14

documented nor investigated by IIU in violation of public disclosure laws and KCSO policies.

15

The only difference between the two is that Neff brought forward a WLAD complaint, and

16

Urquhart (a man) believes he is untouchable. There is overwhelming evidence of Urquhart’s

17

discriminatory treatment of those who bring forward WLAD complaints, and favorable

18

treatment of those who are the subject of those complaints.
III.

19

ISSUE: Must Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied where material

20
21

ISSUES PRESENTED

facts are in dispute? ANSWER: YES.
IV.

22

EVIDENCE RELIED UPON

23
87

Ex. C to Dec. Shoblom..

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 23 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 This response memorandum is based on the pleadings and files in the record and the

1
2

Declaration of Julie A. Kays, and declarations and exhibits thereto.
V.

3

AUTHORITY & ARGUMENT

4

A.

Summary Judgment Standard.

5

Summary judgment is only appropriate only if this Court finds “there is no genuine issue

6

as to any material fact and …the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 89

7

When considering a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must consider all the facts in

8

the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of all

9

reasonable inferences. 90 In line with the remedial goals of WLAD and the fact-intensive nature

10

of discrimination inquiries, Washington courts have noted that summary judgment should rarely

11

be granted to employers in employment discrimination cases, such as this one. 91
Summary judgment in favor of the employer in a discrimination case is seldom
appropriate because the evidence will generally contain reasonable but
competing inferences of both discrimination and nondiscrimination that must be
resolved by the jury.” 92

12
13
14
B.
15

Plaintiffs Neff and Shoblom Satisfy All Elements of their Hostile Work
Environment Claims.

16

Our Supreme Court has held that to establish a prima facie hostile work environment

17

claim the plaintiff must show the following four elements: (1) the harassment was unwelcome,

18

(2) the harassment was sexual in nature or because plaintiff was a member of a protected class,

19
88

20

Id.

89

Loeffelholz v. Univ. Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264, 271 (2012).
Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434, 437 (1982). Although Washington courts look to federal antidiscrimination
cases like McDonnell Douglas, they follow only those federal theories and rationales which best further the
purposes and mandate of our state statute, because “WLAD contains a sweeping policy statement strongly
condemning many forms of discrimination” and requiring courts to construe WLAD liberally in order to achieve
its broad remedial purpose. Grimwood v. Univ. of Puget Sound, 110 Wn.2d 355, 361-62 (1988); Allison v.
Housing Authority of City of Seattle, 118 Wn.2d 79, 85-86 (1991).
91
Johnson v. Dep't of Social & Health Servs., 80 Wn. App. 212, 226, 907 P.2d 1223 (1996).
92
Davis v. West One Auto. Group, 140 Wn. App. 449, 456, 461, 166 P.3d 807 (Div. III 2007) (emphasis added).
90

21
22
23

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 24 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

(3) the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, and (4) the harassment is

2

imputable to the employer. 93 Our Supreme Court has held that the “third element is satisfied if

3

the harassment is ‘sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create

4

an abusive working environment[,]…. to be determined with regard to the totality of the

5

circumstances.’” 94

6

Here Plaintiffs Neff and Shoblom satisfy all of the elements underlying their respective

7

hostile work environment claims. At the onset, and with respect to Defendant’s arguments for

8

summary dismissal of these claims, it is critical to note that Plaintiffs’ expert, retired Police

9

Chief Susan Jones, opines that both Neff and Shoblom were subjected to unwelcomed hostility

10

and harassment based on sexual orientation, gender, and sexualized behavior, and that such

11

conduct adversely impacted the conditions of Plaintiffs’ employment, as set forth in her

12

declaration. 95 Based on these expert opinions alone, summary dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims is

13

precluded.

14

1.

Plaintiff Diana Neff Satisfies All Elements of Her Hostile Work Environment
Claims for Sexual Orientation and Gender Based Harassment.

15
Plaintiff Neff satisfies all of the elements for her hostile work environment claims based
16
on sexual orientation and gender. First, as detailed extensively in her declaration, Neff was
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

93

Loeffelholz v. Univ. Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264, 275 (2012); see also WPI 330.23; Payne v. Children's Home
Soc. of Washington, Inc., 77 Wn.App. 507, 515, 892 P.2d 1102 (1995) (“fact that discriminatory behavior is not
directed at all members of plaintiff's gender is not fatal, so long as the plaintiff shows if she had been of the
opposite gender, she would not have been so treated”); see also EEOC v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n., 442 F.3d 840 (9th
Cir. 2003) (proof of qualitative and quantitative differences in harassment suffered by male and female
employees can be enough to meet the “because of sex” requirement); Kahn v. Salerno, 90 Wn. App. 110, 118,
951 P.2d 321, 326 (1998) (hostile work environment claim can be based on acts that are sexual in nature or a
plaintiff’s protected class, such as gender).
94
Loeffelholz, supra. at 275 citing Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d. 256 (2004); Schonauer v. DCR
Entertainment, Inc., 79 Wn.App. 808, 820 (1995) (Courts look at the “totality of the circumstances” in
determining whether the offensive conduct was sufficiently pervasive and looks at the frequency of the conduct,
its severity, whether it is humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work
performance”).
95
Dec. Jones 7-18.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 25 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

subjected to unwelcomed and offensive harassment in the workplace that was specifically due to

2

being a gay woman. With respect to her sexual orientation, Neff was repeatedly ridiculed for

3

being gay, called a “gay crusader,” made the subject of offensive jokes about sexual

4

relationships with other female officers, openly and humiliatingly questioned about her sexual

5

orientation over 200 times (including in officer meetings), and subjected to implied threats that

6

if she discussed her sexual orientation that there would be negative career consequences. These

7

acts were all perpetrated by male KCSO officers and caused Neff to feel embarrassed, offended,

8

and threatened in the KCSO workplace. 96

9

With respect to her gender, Neff and other female officers were repeatedly ignored and

10

treated condescendingly by Major Ledford and Captain Strathy, passed over for promotions

11

which were later given to less qualified male officers, subjected to hyper-critical and uncommon

12

workplace tasks that were not required of male officers, purposefully tormented and bullied (for

13

example, turning down thermostat), and had her ability to be a female sergeant questioned and

14

criticized behind her back. These acts were all perpetrated by male KCSO officers. 97 There is

15

also no question that Neff was subjected to these acts due to her gender. With each of the

16

actions described above, male officers were consistently treated differently and more favorably:

17

male officers received the promotions, male officers were not ignored in the workplace and were

18

treated congenially by Major Ledford and Captain Strathy, male officers were not required to

19

undertake the same tedious workplace tasks as female officers (for example, travel forms), and

20

male officers were not subjected to criticism about their abilities to be sergeants or leaders. 98

21
22
23

96

Dec. Neff, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g, 2h, 2j, 2k, and 2l.

97

Dec. Neff, 3a, 3e, 3m, 3n, and 3p.

98

Id.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 26 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

Further supporting the conclusion that these acts were due to Neff’s gender, numerous

2

other women at the KCSO Shoreline Division were subjected to gender based harassment. 99

3

Thus, there is a more than sufficient factual basis on which to infer that these actions were due to

4

Neff’s status as a female officer.

5

Third, the sexual orientation and gender based harassment at KCSO affected the terms

6

and conditions of Neff’s employment. It is enough if “hostile conduct pollutes the victim’s

7

workplace,” making it more difficult for an individual to do her job, to take pride in her work,

8

and to desire to stay on in her current position. 100 Courts look at the totality of the circumstances

9

to determine whether the harassment was sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of

10

employment and create an abusive working environment. 101

11

Here Neff suffered emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and damage to her

12

professional reputation as a consequence of the hostile work environment created by Major

13

Ledford, Captain Strathy, and other male KCSO officers. 102 These male officers’ patterns of

14

ignoring and not engaging with Neff and other female officers, as well as acting in a

15

condescending and curt manner, denying promotions, criticizing credibility and qualifications,

16

critiquing physical appearance, and making offensive comments about sexual orientation, all

17

created a workplace culture in which Neff – as a gay woman – felt secondary to male officers,

18

unable to carry out her duties without undue criticism and scorn, prevented from advancement

19
20
21
22
23

99

Dec. Neff, 3g, 3h, 3q, 3r.

100

See Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1463 (9th Cir. 1994).

101

See Davis v. West One Automotive Group, 140 Wn. App. 449, 458, 166 P.3d 807 (2007).

102

Dec. Neff, 2b-2l, 32j.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 27 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

and promotion, and routinely embarrassed and humiliated. 103 There acts of harassment were

2

neither “isolated incidents” nor “trivial,” and undoubtedly impacted Neff’s work environment. 104

3

Fourth, the numerous acts of sexual orientation and gender based harassment to which

4

Neff was subjected are imputable to the employer. In determining if the workplace hostility is

5

imputable to the employer, the employee must show that the employer authorized, knew of, or

6

should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonably prompt corrective action. 105

7

This element is clearly satisfied. To begin, Neff’s superiors – including Major Ledford and

8

Captain Strathy – were not only aware of this offensive conduct, but also were frequently the

9

individuals carrying out these acts of hostility or harassment. In addition, Neff reported these

10

acts of harassment to other KCSO superiors, including Chief Deputy Kirkpatrick, although no

11

corrective action was taken. 106 Both actual knowledge and constructive knowledge is imputed

12

to KCSO on these facts, and all elements of Neff’s claim are satisfied.
2.

13

Plaintiff Amy Shoblom Satisfies All Elements of Her Hostile Work
Environment Claims for Sexual and Gender Based Harassment.

14
Similarly, Plaintiff Shoblom satisfies all of the elements for her hostile work
15
environment claims based on sexual and gender based harassment. First, as detailed at length in
16
her declaration, Shoblom was subjected to routine acts of unwelcome and offensive harassment
17
while employed with KCSO.

With respect to sexual harassment, Sergeant Burns would

18
frequently accuse her of having sex with other male officers, describe to Shoblom the manner in
19
which he would have sex, describe engaging in sexual acts, would make Shoblom look at
20
pictures of scantily clad women, drew a penis on the hood of Shoblom’s car with hand sanitizer,
21
22

103

Dec. Neff, 3a-3r, 32j.

104

23

Glasgow v. Georgia Pacific, 103 Wn.2d 401, 407 (1985).
Glasgow, 103 Wn.2d at 407; see also Schonauer v. DCR Entm't, Inc., 79 Wn. App. 808, 820, 905 P.2d 392,
400 (1995).
105

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 28 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

made sexual advances on Shoblom, and told Shoblom that they should have a contest as to who

2

would cheat on their spouse first. Shoblom was humiliated, embarrassed, and threatened by

3

these actions and statements that were unquestionably sexual in nature. 107

4

Regarding gender harassment, Burns and other male officers would criticize and make

5

demeaning comments about Shoblom’s ability to carry out her duties as a woman, and would

6

make demeaning comments about women and women’s bodies. Burns and other male officers

7

did not merely make these statements in passing; rather, these actions were specifically directed

8

at Shoblom because she was a woman – for example, Shoblom should understand or relate

9

because she was a woman, or Shoblom was being harshly criticized because women had to

10

prove themselves in law enforcement. 108 Moreover, it is important to note that the acts of sexual

11

harassment articulated above were also inherently tied to Shoblom’s gender: that is, Burns made

12

these comments to Shoblom because he found her attractive as a woman, assumed she would

13

understand or relate because she was a woman, and assumed she was interested in other male

14

officers because she was a heterosexual woman.

15

Third, the sexualized and gender based harassment at KCSO affected the terms and

16

conditions of Shoblom’s employment. As noted above, Shoblom suffered emotional distress,

17

humiliation, embarrassment, and damage to her professional reputation as a consequence of the

18

hostile work environment created by Burns and other male KCSO officers. Burns treated

19

Shoblom as a sexual object and would regularly subject Shoblom to highly sexualized

20

comments. Burns and other male officers would critique Shoblom’s ability to carry out her

21

duties due to being a woman and would generally make demeaning comments about women and

22
23

106

Dec. Neff, 4a-6, 22.

107

Dec. Shoblom, 5-6d, 9.

108

Dec. Shoblom, 3, 5-6d, 8, 9.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 29 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

their physical appearances. In conjunction, these acts created a workplace in which Shoblom not

2

only felt embarrassed and humiliated by sexualized behavior, but also degraded and limited from

3

fully carrying out her job responsibilities due to male officer’s opinions and perceptions of

4

women. 109

5

Finally, Burns and other male KCSO officers’ acts of sexual and gender based

6

harassment are imputable to the employer. First, like Neff, Shoblom was harassed by her

7

supervisor – Sergeant Burns. Burns had direct supervisory control over Shoblom, and his acts

8

are imputable to KCSO.110 In addition, Shoblom reported these acts of harassment to other

9

KCSO superiors. 111 Ultimately, no corrective action was taken. Both actual knowledge and

10

constructive knowledge is imputed to KCSO on these facts. In sum, when the facts are viewed

11

in the light most favorable to Shoblom, she has satisfied the elements of her claim of hostile

12

work environment for sexual and gender based harassment.

13

C.

Plaintiffs Neff and Shoblom Satisfy All Elements of their Gender Discrimination
Claims.

14
The elements of a discrimination claim consist of proof that (1) the employee's
15
membership in the protected class was a substantial factor in the defendant's decision not to hire,
16
to discharge, to not promote, or to discriminate in any terms or conditions of employment, and
17
(2) a similarly situated person outside of her protected class was treated more favorably. 112
18
Proof of a “substantial factor” does not require a showing of but-for causation, nor does it even
19
have to be the main factor. 113

Additionally, the employer's motivation can be shown by

20
21
22
23

109

Dec. Shoblom, 3, 5-6c, 11, 20d.

110

Dec. Shoblom 5; Dec. Caballero, 6.

111

Dec. Shoblom 2, 12-13.

112

See WPI 330.01
See Id.; see also: Mackay v. Acorn Custom Cabinetry, Inc., 127 Wn.2d 302(1995) (requiring “substantial
factor” in employment discrimination cases).

113

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 30 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

circumstantial evidence because the employer is not likely to announce discrimination as his

2

motive. 114

3

evidence, and is given equal weight under the law. 115

Circumstantial evidence is just as relevant, powerful, and important as direct

4

If the employer presents a nondiscriminatory reason for the action, the plaintiff must in

5

turn prove that the employer's articulated reasons are a mere pretext for a discriminatory

6

purpose. 116 An employee may satisfy the pretext prong by offering sufficient evidence to create

7

a genuine issue of material fact either (1) that the defendant's reason is pretextual or (2) that

8

although the employer's stated reason is legitimate, discrimination nevertheless was a substantial

9

factor motivating the employer. 117 “An employee does not need to disprove each of the

10

employer's articulated reasons to satisfy the pretext burden of production. Our case law clearly

11

establishes that it is the plaintiff's burden at trial to prove that discrimination was a substantial

12

factor in an adverse employment action, not the only motivating factor.” 118

13

Again, since Defendant’s motion seeks summary dismissal of these claims, Plaintiffs

14

would again note that retired Chief Jones opines that both Neff and Shoblom were subjected to

15

adverse employment actions as a direct result of their gender, and that similarly situated male

16

officers were treated more favorably, thus resulting in gender based discrimination 119 Based on

17

Chief Jones’ expert opinions, summary dismissal is again precluded.

18
19
20
21
22
23

114

Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I, 144 Wn.2d 172, 179-80(2001) (Direct, “smoking gun” evidence of
discriminatory animus is rare, since “[t]here will seldom be ‘eyewitness' testimony as to the employer's mental
processes, and “employers infrequently announce their bad motives orally or in writing. Consequently, it would
be improper to require every plaintiff to produce “direct evidence of discriminatory intent. Courts have thus
repeatedly stressed that “[c]ircumstantial, indirect and inferential evidence will suffice to discharge the plaintiff's
burden.”).
115
WPI 1.03 (”the law does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence in terms of their weight or
value in finding the facts in this case. One is not necessarily more or less valuable than the other”).
116
Kastanis, 122 Wn.2d at 491.
117
Scrivener v. Clark Coll., 181 Wn.2d 439, 446-47(2014)
118
Id.
119
Dec. Jones, 19-23.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 31 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

1.

Plaintiff Diana Neff Satisfies All Elements of Her Gender Based
Discrimination Claim.

2
Plaintiff Neff satisfies all of the elements for her gender based discrimination claim. To
3
begin, Neff is in a protected class: she is a woman, and she is gay. Next, she was subjected to
4
numerous adverse employment actions. Under Washington law, an “[a]dverse employment
5
action means a tangible change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote,
6
reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant
7

change in benefits.” 120 Neff was subjected to numerous adverse employment actions, including

8
but not limited to: being repeatedly passed over for promotions in which less qualified male
9
officers were chosen, being forced to transfer to a less prestigious unit with loss of
10
wages/benefits/overtime due to unceasing harassment and discriminatory behavior in the
11
workplace, being effectively discharged and replaced from the Shoreline SET Unit before the
12
transfer was even approved by KCSO or accepted by Neff, and being subjected to retaliatory
13
complaints and IIU investigations – all of which resulted in no punitive action – but that
14
nevertheless permanently damaged Neff’s reputation and credibility as to constitute a tangible
15
change in her employment status. 121
16
Neff’s gender was also a substantial factor in these adverse employment actions as
17
evidenced by the frequent passing over of women for promotions (in favor of less qualified male
18
officers), criticism of Neff and other female officer’s credibility and qualifications (and a lack of
19
such criticism towards male officers), and an overall attitude of ignoring and dismissing female
20
officers by male KCSO superiors in the Shoreline Division (contrasted by the congenial and
21
22
120

23

Crownover v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 165 Wn. App. 131, 148, 265 P.3d 971, 980 (2011) (emphasis
added).
121

Dec. Neff, 3a, 3g, 8-13, 27-31c, 32a-32k.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 32 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

inclusive behavior towards male officers). This evidence also satisfies the fourth prima facie

2

element: namely, that a similarly situated male officer was treated more favorably. 122

3

Finally, KCSO proffers minimal – if any – reasons for the adverse employment actions

4

suffered by Neff, which are nothing more than pretext. Neff has presented considerable direct

5

and circumstantial evidence satisfying each element of her claim: for example, the repeated non-

6

promotion of Neff and other female officers in favor of less qualified male officers, the repeated

7

discharge and replacement of Neff and other female sergeants with male sergeants, and the

8

general workplace atmosphere of excluding and ignoring female officers in favor of inclusivity

9

and favorable treatment of male officers. These facts – as well as Jones’ declaration – present

10

sufficient evidence to call into question the motives underlying the adverse employment actions

11

and create genuine issues of material fact precluding summary dismissal.

12

2.

Plaintiff Amy Shoblom Satisfies All Elements of Her Gender Based
Discrimination Claim.

13
Plaintiff Shoblom also satisfies all of the elements for her gender based discrimination
14
claim. First, as a woman, Shoblom belongs to a protected class. In addition, Shoblom was
15
subjected to numerous adverse employment actions including: having her daily job
16
responsibilities obstructed by demeaning criticism by Burns and other male officers who
17
questioned Shoblom’s ability to successfully police as a female; being subjected to retaliatory
18
investigations soon after reporting Sergeant Burns’ harassment; providing her personal phone
19
communications data to assist with the sexual harassment investigation only to have it
20
improperly used as evidence in a retaliatory investigation; being punished with twenty (20) days
21
22
23

122

See, e.g., Dec. Neff, 3a (less qualified male officers promoted on each occasion) and 9-10 (Neff and other
female officers effectively discharged and replaced on every occasion by male officers; “So the two most senior
female Sergeants as Shoreline, and the only female sergeants at Shoreline were being replaced by men….Every
female that had been forced out or had been forced into another position at Shoreline under Ledford, was being
replaced by a male. Sgt. Larson, Officer Obstler, Det. Magan and I were all replaced by males”).
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 33 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

off as a result of this retaliatory investigation (which the Seattle Police Officers Guild is

2

appealing), which resulted in lost wages and benefits; and ultimately being discharged from

3

KCSO as a result of these retaliatory investigations that began after speaking up about Burns’

4

sexist and inappropriate treatment of females and females officers (herself included). 123

5

There is also considerable factual and circumstantial evidence supporting the conclusion

6

that Shoblom’s gender was a substantial factor in these adverse employment actions: for

7

example, male officers were not criticized and questioned with regard to policing abilities on the

8

basis of their gender; no male officer was punished as a specific result of Shoblom’s harassment

9

complaint, and instead, retaliatory investigations were initiated against her; and no male officer

10

was terminated on the specific basis of harassment, and instead, Shoblom was terminated due to

11

vindictive investigations that began immediately after reporting harassment. This evidence also

12

establishes that similar male officers were treated more favorably. 124

13

Finally, KCSO’s arguments attempting to justify the adverse employment actions

14

suffered by Shoblom are entirely pretext; at a minimum, when viewed in her favor as the

15

nonmoving party, Shoblom has presented considerable direct and circumstantial evidence to

16

create genuine issues of material fact precluding summary dismissal: KCSO presents no

17

evidence to refute the claim that male officers were not criticized and questioned with regard to

18

policing abilities on the basis of their gender; KCSO’s arguments for the discharge of Shoblom

19

are, at a minimum, tainted as this investigation began immediately after Shoblom’s reporting of

20

sexual harassment and is critiqued as unreasonable, improper, and highly suspect by Plaintiffs’

21

experts; and moreover, KCSO provides no objective basis as to why Shoblom’s harassment

22
23

123
124

Dec. Shoblom, 2, 3, 7, 11, 17-17b, 20a-d.
Id.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 34 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

complaint against Burns was ultimately discarded. Of note, Shoblom had also never been the

2

subject of an IIU investigation prior to reporting. 125 These facts – as well as Plaintiffs’ experts’

3

declarations – present sufficient evidence to call into question the motives underlying the

4

adverse employment actions in question and create genuine issues of fact precluding summary

5

dismissal.

6

C.

7

RCW 49.60.210 proscribes retaliatory employment actions against those who have

8

“opposed any practices forbidden by this chapter.” 126 To establish a prima facie case of

9

retaliation, the plaintiff must show that she/he (1) engaged in statutorily protected activity, (2)

10

suffered adverse employment action, and (3) there was a causal connection between the

11

exercise of the statutory right and the adverse action. 127

Plaintiffs Satisfy all the Elements underlying their Retaliation Claims.

12

Regarding the first element, our courts have held that an employee who opposes

13

employment practices reasonably believed to be discriminatory is protected by the “opposition

14

clause” whether or not the practice is actually discriminatory. 128 An employee need only show

15

she/he had an objectively reasonable belief that the employer violated the law, not that the

16

employer did in fact violate the law. 129 It is not necessary that the WLAD actually proscribe

17
18
19
125

20

Dec. Shoblom, 2.

126

RCW 49.40.210.
Kahn v. Salerno, 90 Wn. App. 110, 130, (1998); WPI 330.05.
128
Graves v. Dep’t of Game, 76 Wn.App. 705, 712, (Div. III 1994). An employee engages in WLAD-protected
activity when she opposes employment practices forbidden by antidiscrimination law or other practices that she
reasonably believed to be discriminatory Lodis v. Corbis Holdings, Inc., 172 Wn. App. 835, 852 (2013); Alonso
v. Qwest Comm. Co. 178 Wn.App. 734, 754 (2013).
129
Id. (citing Ellis v. City of Seattle, 142 Wn.2d 450, 460–61, 13 P.3d 1065 (2000)). “An employee who opposes
employment practices reasonably believed to be discriminatory is protected by the opposition clause whether or
not the practice is actually discriminatory.” Renz v. Spokane Eye Clinic, 114 Wn.App. 611, 691 (2011).
127

21
22
23

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 35 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

the employer’s conduct; so long as the employee reasonably believes she is opposing

2

discriminatory practices, the statute protects the employees conduct. 130

3

Neff easily satisfies the first element. She met on two separate occasions with the

4

Chief Deputy to state her opposition to the hostile work environment and discriminatory

5

treatment by Ledford on behalf of herself, Larson, Obstler, and other women. Larson and

6

Blessum corroborate Neff’s claim, and her reasonable belief that Ledford was engaging in

7

discrimination. 131 Neff easily establishes the first element.

8

Here, Shoblom has established this first element, when she complained about sexual

9

harassment by Sergeant Burns. The Defendant’s argument that Shoblom did not engage in a

10

protected activity is nonsense, and views the facts in the light most favorable to the Defendant,

11

which is inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings. As evidence of the reasonableness of

12

Shoblom’s belief consider: her declaration in the light most favorable to her; Plaintiffs’ expert

13

Susan Jones opines that Burns’ conduct constituted sexual harassment; Shoblom’s report to

14

her superior, Sgt. Caballero; Sgt. Caballero’s report of the same to his superior; and the

15

County investigated the report by Shoblom. When the evidence is viewed in the light most

16

favorable to Shoblom it is clear that she – and others – had a reasonable belief that she

17

experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. Shoblom, and Caballero have therefor both

18

satisfied this first element. 132

19
20

130

Currier v. Northland Servs. Inc., 182 Wn.App. 733, 743 (2014).
After she lodged two verbal complaints with the Chief Deputy, Neff engaged in additional protected activities
when she lodged a formal complaint to HR, testified in IIU/EEO proceeding on Ledford’s discrimination, filed
her tort claim and filed her lawsuit.
131

21

132

22
23

Shoblom engaged in a myriad of protected activities when she: objected to the sexual harassment by Burns;
testified in an EEO/IIU investigation into the same; filed her tort claim indicating her intent to file suit for
retaliation, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment; filed her lawsuit indicating the same. Caballero too
engaged in protected activities when he: reported the sexual harassment; testified in an EEO/IIU investigation
into the same; filed his tort claim and filed his lawsuit. Testifying in an official proceeding is a protected activity.
See RCW 49.60.210; WPI 330.05. Elements of proof for a retaliation claim.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 36 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

The second element requires that the Plaintiffs suffer an adverse employment action

2

after engaging in a protected activity. Our courts have held that an “adverse employment

3

action” may include any tangible change in employment status such as “hiring, firing, failing

4

to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a

5

significant change in benefits.”

6

employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination constitutes an “adverse

7

action.” 134

133

Any response that “might have dissuaded a reasonable

8

Neff easily satisfies the second element that she suffered an adverse employment

9

action. Neff and Larson were forced out of Shoreline by the Sheriff. In response to their

10

complaints of discrimination and hostility, Chief Deputy Kirkpatrick delivered the Sheriff’s

11

message: find a new home because Ledford isn't going anywhere. Neff and Larson had NO

12

choice but to leave. Neff was forced out of an exclusive assignment (the only female SET

13

Unit sergeant), on a specialty unit (only 6 units department wide), interacting with federal

14

agents. She was forced to take a lessor assignment of patrol sergeant. To declare that this is

15

not an adverse employment action, as the County argues, would be improper at this stage in

16

the proceeding. This is a material issue of disputed fact, and the facts must be viewed in the

17

light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. As such it is clear that a jury must decide factually

18

whether Neff being forced out of the Shoreline SET Unit by the Sheriff, after complaining

19
20
21
133

22
23

Crownover v. Dept. of Transp., 165 Wn.App. 131, 148 (2011) (emphasis added).
The Washington Supreme Court has frequently recognized that while federal discrimination cases are not
binding they may be persuasive and their analyses adopted where they further the purposes and mandates of state
law. Antonius v. King Cty., 153 Wn.2d 256, 266, (2004). WLAD is broader than Title VII and is to be more
liberally construed, see e.g. Martini v. Boeing Co., 137 Wn.2d 357, 372-75 (1999)(WLAD has a “mandate” for
“liberal interpretation”).
134

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 37 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

about discrimination, and forced to take a patrol sergeant position, constitutes an adverse

2

employment action. 135

3

Shoblom and Caballero also easily satisfy this second element, as both were fired after

4

reporting the sexual harassment by Burns. Further, Shoblom and Caballero were both the

5

subject of repeated IIU investigations, almost as if the Sheriff was searching for a reason to

6

fire the two. Neff, too, was subjected to multiple investigations. The pattern here is clear:

7

report a violation of WLAD, and you will be subjected to being forced out of your position,

8

and investigations which may result in you being fired, and certainly damage your

9

professional reputation.

10

Regarding the third element, the plaintiff must demonstrate that retaliation was a

11

“substantial factor” motivating the employer’s adverse employment action; plaintiff need not

12

show, however, that retaliation was the sole or principal motivation. 136 A factor supporting

13

the employer’s decision is “substantial” if it “tips the scales one way or the other.” 137 Because

14

employers rarely openly reveal that retaliation was a motive for adverse employment action, a

15

plaintiff may rely on circumstantial evidence to show retaliatory purpose. 138 If an employee

16

establishes that she participated in an opposition activity, that the employer knew of the

17

opposition activity, and that the employer still took the adverse action against the employee,

18

then the employee creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation that precludes a court from

19
20
21
22
23

135

Neff experienced additional adverse employment actions: when she was subjected to an off the book IIU
investigation, an IIU complaint and investigation lodged by the Sheriff himself, and a criminal investigation.
These investigations are part of Neff’s permanent employment file and tarnish her reputation professionally and
personally.
136

Burchfield v. Boeing, 149 Wn.App. 468, 482 (2009).
Renz, supra at 621.
138
Id.
137

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 38 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

dismissing the employee’s case. 139 Courts have recognized that an employer may commit a

2

retaliatory act where a person uses his or her influence over the employer’s decision-making

3

process to give effect to his or her animus. 140 Our courts have also acknowledged that

4

temporal proximity between protected activity and an adverse act can indicate retaliation. 141

5

The outer limits of temporal proximity are an open question under our state law. Time periods

6

of up to a year have been held to support a finding of causation at summary judgment, but

7

courts are cautioned not to “engage in a mechanical inquiry into the amount of time” between

8

protected conduct and an adverse action. 142
Here retaliation was a “substantial factor” motivating the County’s adverse

9
10

employment actions against the Plaintiffs. 143

11

substantial factor motivating the Sheriff’s decision to force her out of Shoreline and to

12

investigate her off-book and lodge an IIU complaint against her. The Sheriff’s statements: “oh

13

good we’ve got something on her [Neff]” are particularly damning and probative of retaliatory

14

animus. 144 The testimony of Captain Nesel further strengthens Neff’s case that the Sheriff was

15

engaged in acts of retaliation against Neff for lodging a complaint against Ledford. The

16

violation of KCSO policies by conducting an off the book investigation into Neff is further

17

evidence of retaliatory motive. At this stage in the proceeding Neff has clearly established

Neff has established that retaliation was a

18
19
139

20
21
22
23

Estevez v. Faculty Club of Univ. of Wash., 129 Wn.App. 774, 799 (2005); Accord, Wilmot v. Kaiser
Aluminum, 118 Wn.2d 46, 69 (1991).
140
City of Vancouver v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 180 Wn.App. 33, 351-52, 354 (2104).
141
Estevez, supra, 129 Wn.App. at 799.
142
See Anthoine v. N.Cent Cntys. Consortium, 605 F.3d 740, 751 (9th Cir.2010); Dalton v. Wash. St. Dept. Corr.,
344 Fed.Appx. 300, 303 (9th Cir.2009) (one year); Allen v. Iranon, 283 F.3d 1070, 1078 (9th Cir.2002)(11
months).
143
Burchfield v. Boeing, 149 Wn.App. 468, 482 (2009).
144

The statement by Nesel to Neff is not hearsay. Nesel is a speaking agent, as is the Sheriff. Both levels of
hearsay have an exception under ER 801.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 39 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

that retaliation was a substantial factor in forcing her out of Shoreline, and the subsequent

2

investigations into her by the Department.

3

Caballero and Shoblom have also presented evidence that retaliation was a “substantial

4

factor” motivating the County’s adverse employment actions taken against them. A review of:

5

the Sheriff’s involvement in the Metro driver investigation; Van Blaircom’s opinions that such

6

involvement constituted retaliation; Captain Anderson’s testimony that the Sheriff had a

7

history shaping the outcome of IIU investigations through his involvement; years of

8

employees who were investigated for making false statements shows that the Sheriff’s act of

9

firing Caballero and Shoblom was retaliatory and excessive; the Sheriff’s order that Ledford

10

NOT be investigated for lying to IIU; the Sheriff’s order that he not be investigated for a rape

11

complaint; the Sheriff’s order that Berringer not be investigated for failing a polygraph nor the

12

Sheriff’s own statements stating the opposite not be investigated. All of this evidence, when

13

viewed in the light most favorable to Shoblom and Caballero proves that retaliation was a

14

“substantial factor” in the adverse employment actions taken against them.

15

In sum, each Plaintiff has presented significant direct and circumstantial evidence that,

16

when viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, must result in denial of summary

17

judgment on all retaliation claims.

18
19

VI.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Defendant’s

20

Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety.

21

DATED this 28th day of November, 2016.

22

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC

Julie A. Kays

23
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 40 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1
2

By _________________________________
Julie A. Kays, WSBA No. 30385
Evan T. Fuller, WSBA No. 48024
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 41 of 41
(Cause No. 15-2-09687-7 SEA)

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax