6. The plaintiff was employed in one of the defendant’s stores. She suffered a back injury and made a workers’ compensation claim. When she was partially recovered, she returned to the store on a light-duty assignment that allowed her to work four hours per day. Upon her return, co-workers made fun of her injury and mocked her limitations, sometimes implying by their barbs that the injury was faked. The plaintiff sued for disability discrimination under the state’s antidiscrimination statute, retaliation under the state’s workers’

compensation act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

How should the court rule on each of these claims as against plaintiff’s employer? Does it make a difference whether the store manager was aware of her co-workers’ behavior? Whether she complained to higher company officials about it? Whether the manager took part in the behavior?

If the court finds retaliation for pursuing a workers’ compensation claim, should this finding insulate the employer from liability under the state’s antidiscrimination statute? Under state tort law? See Robel v. Roundup Corporation [148 Wash.
2d 35, 59 P.3d 611 (Wash. Supreme 2002)].