Davis

MEMORANDUM *

Wanda Davis appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Seattle and Jorge Carrasco. We affirm. 1 Davis’s claims that accrued before August 28, 2003, are barred by the statute of limitations. Wash. Rev.Code § 4.96.020(4); see RK Ventures, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 307 F.3d 1045, 1058 (9th Cir.2002). Davis’s allegations that would, if true, establish causes of action accruing prior to August 28, 2003, are also separated by intervening events from the subsequent actions of which she complains. See Antonius v. King County, 153 Wash.2d 256 , 103 P.3d 729, 733, 737 (2004). Nor does Davis point to any evidence showing that the claims “emanat[ed] from the same discriminatory animus.” Id. at 733 (internal quotation marks omitted). The alleged acts of harassment by one of Davis’s supervisors are barred because of Seattle City Light’s intervening act of transferring Davis to another station. Id. at 737.

Davis has not established a prima facie case of hostile work environment harassment because she has offered no evidence of any actions rising to the level of “harassment” that could be imputed to the defendants. See Domingo v. Boeing…

dissenting in part:

I dissent as to the retaliation claim regarding the 2006 suspension; otherwise I concur.

In my view, there was sufficient evidence regarding the 2006 suspension from which a reasonable jury could infer that a retaliatory motive was at work. Paul Weintraub admitted at his deposition that he harbored ill-feeling toward Davis because of the 1994 lawsuit. Weintraub was involved in the decision to suspend Davis for two days in 2006; he was interviewed about the Horne incident and informed the investigator of his distrust of Davis, even though, as he recognized in his deposition, his opinion of Davis had nothing to do with the event being investigated. Also, Wein-traub had approved Davis’s plan to meet with Horne before Horne began a rotation in Davis’s unit, a plan proposed because Davis would be away when Horne began work.

The notion that the meeting was somehow seriously embarrassing to Horne could be seen as pretextual. The meeting *234 was entirely private, and the investigation did not suggest that the mode of interaction was inappropriate. And, whether or not Horne made homophobic comments is on this record disputable; a reasonable jury could conclude that…