Goodman
Goodman v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Sears, Roebuck & Co. (“Sears”) appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Michael Goodman on his claim for age discrimination under the Washington Law *411 Against Discrimination (WLAD), Wash. Rev.Code § 49.60.180(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part but remand for clarification on the damages award.
Sears first claims that the district court erred by requiring it to prove through “conclusive” or “uncontroverted independent evidence” that its decision to terminate Goodman was not based on his age. We review this question of state law de novo. See Howard v. United States, 181 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir.1999). The district court did not require Sears to bear the ultimate burden of proof; its order simply quoted from Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I, 144 Wash.2d 172 , 23 P.3d 440, 448 (2001) (in turn quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000)). The court properly held Goodman to his burden of establishing that Sears’ proffered reasons for his termination were pretextual, and it had sufficient evidence to find that Goodman met this burden.