2 min read
Gender Discrimination in Mikkelsen v. Public Utility District No. 1
Introduction
The case of Mikkelsen v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Kittitas County addresses critical issues regarding wrongful termination, gender discrimination, and employee rights under workplace corrective action policies. The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the circumstances surrounding Kim Mikkelsen's termination, which raised questions about potential gender bias and whether employment policies altered her at-will employment status.
Background of the Case
Kim Mikkelsen worked for the Public Utility District No. 1 of Kittitas County for 27 years. Initially hired in 1984, Mikkelsen held the position of finance manager and, at one point, served as interim general manager. During her tenure, she helped implement a corrective action policy intended to provide clarity on workplace disciplinary measures.
In 2010, Charles Ward became the district's general manager. Mikkelsen and Ward initially worked well together, but their relationship deteriorated over time. Mikkelsen alleged that Ward displayed gender bias in his treatment of her, including excluding her from management communications, dismissing her input, and undermining her authority. Ward’s behavior, according to Mikkelsen, contrasted sharply with his treatment of male colleagues.
In 2011, Mikkelsen created an anonymous employee survey to address workplace concerns. Upon discovering the survey, Ward terminated Mikkelsen, stating, “it’s not working out.” Mikkelsen filed suit, alleging gender and age discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) and wrongful termination in violation of the district's corrective action policy.
Key Legal Issues
The court considered three primary questions:
- Is the replacement element required to prove discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support Mikkelsen’s claims of gender discrimination?
- Did the district's corrective action policy alter Mikkelsen’s at-will employment status?
Court’s Analysis and Findings
-
Replacement Element Not Required
The court clarified that under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination does not need to prove they were replaced by someone outside their protected class. This ruling aligned with federal interpretations that focus on whether discrimination was a substantial factor in the adverse employment action. -
Gender Discrimination Claims
Mikkelsen provided evidence suggesting that gender discrimination influenced her termination. She described Ward’s dismissive treatment of her input, frequent interruptions during meetings, and preferential treatment toward male colleagues. Ward also referred to female staff as “girls” or “gals” while avoiding similar terminology for men. Mikkelsen further alleged inappropriate conduct, such as Ward rearranging his genitals in her presence—a behavior not observed around male employees.
The court emphasized that when evidence supports competing inferences of discrimination and nondiscrimination, the issue must be resolved by a jury. Thus, the court reversed the dismissal of Mikkelsen’s gender discrimination claim.
- Corrective Action Policy
The court examined whether the district’s corrective action policy constituted a promise of specific treatment that modified Mikkelsen’s at-will employment status. While the policy granted the district broad discretion in disciplinary matters, it also included language emphasizing fairness and due consideration of employee rights.
The court found the policy ambiguous, as it could be interpreted to require cause for termination. Ambiguities in workplace policies often present factual questions for a jury, and the court concluded that Mikkelsen had raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding her wrongful termination claim.
Conclusion
The Washington Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Mikkelsen’s age discrimination claim due to insufficient evidence but reversed the dismissal of her gender discrimination and wrongful termination claims. The court’s analysis reinforced the principle that workplace policies must be clear and that gender bias allegations require careful scrutiny when supported by circumstantial evidence.
This case highlights the importance of maintaining fair and transparent disciplinary practices while ensuring that employment decisions are free from discriminatory motives.
Contact Us
If you are facing wrongful termination or discrimination in the workplace, our experienced legal team at Whitcomb, Selinsky PC is here to help. Contact us today for a consultation.