Sellie

MEMORANDUM **

Earl Sellie appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of The Boeing Co. in this action alleging that his termination was the result of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), Chapter 49.60 RCW. Whether Sellie’s claims are evaluated under the McDonnell Douglas 1 burden-shifting analysis, or the mixed motive framework articulated in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 , 109 S.Ct. 1775 , 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989) and Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 , 123 S.Ct. 2148 , 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003), 2 he has failed to raise a triable issue that Boeing gave him a “C” rating or selected him for termination in its reduction-in-force (RIF) for any reason having to do with age. Therefore, we affirm.

Sellie argues that ratings, and statements made by Todd Keller and Tom Moore, in connection with the 2001 retention exercise show Boeing’s discriminatory motive during the 2002 retention exercise. There is no evidence, however, that Keller’s 2001 actions had any effect on the 2002 retention decision or that he or Moore had any input into the 2002…