Herried v. Pierce County Pub. Transp. Benefit Auth. Corp., 90 Wn. App. 468, 476, 957 P.2d 767 (1998) (citing Gearheart v. Shelton, 23 Wn. App. 292, 297, 595 P.2d 67 (1979)). Here, the trial court awarded costs for several depositions.
To impute liability to an employer for a co-worker's actions in a hostile workplace claim pursuant to RCW 49.60 et seq., the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the employer "(a) authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment, and (b) failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action." Herried v. Pierce County Public Transp. Benefit Auth. Corp., 90 Wn. App. 468, 474, 957 P.2d 767 (1998) (quoting Glasgow, 103 Wn.2d at 407). This element may be proven by showing "that the employer's remedial action was not of such nature as to have been reasonably calculated to end the harassment."
¶47 To impute liability to an employer for a co-worker's actions in a hostile workplace claim pursuant to chapter 49.60 RCW, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the employer "'(a) authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment, and (b) failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.'" Herried v. Pierce County Pub. Transp. Benefit Auth. Corp., 90 Wn. App. 468, 474, 957 P.2d 767 (1998) (quoting Glasgow, 103 Wn.2d at 407). This element may be proved by showing "'that the employer's remedial action was not of such nature as to have been reasonably calculated to end the harassment.'"
A party that prevails on a summary judgment motion may recover costs "incurred in taking depositions specifically considered by the trial court. . . ." Herried v. Pierce County Pub. Transp. Benefit Auth. Corp., 90 Wn. App. 468, 476, 957 P.2d 767 (1998) (citing Gearheart v. Shelton, 23 Wn. App. 292, 595 P.2d 67 (1979)). Here, the trial court awarded costs for several depositions.
An employer can be liable for negligently supervising an employee. Herried v. Pierce County Pub. Transp. Benefit Auth. Corp., 90 Wn. App. 468, 475, 957 P.2d 767, review denied, 136 Wn.2d 1005 (1998). However, Jefferson's negligent supervision claim is foreclosed by her failure to establish a prima facie case on all her discrimination and tort claims.
"An employer can be liable for negligently supervising an employee." Herried v. Pierce County Pub. Transp. Benefit Auth. Corp., 90 Wn. App. 468, 475, 957 P.2d 767 (citing Thompson v. Everett Clinic, 71 Wn. App. 548, 555, 860 P.2d 1054 (1993), review denied, 123 Wn.2d 1027 (1994); Peck v. Siau, 65 Wn. App. 285, 827 P.2d 1108, review denied, 120 Wn.2d 1005 (1992)), review denied, 136 Wn.2d 1005 (1998). Costco contends, however, that this liability extends only to third persons, not to fellow employees.
Once an employer knows of the harassment, it is only required to take "reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action." Herried v. Pierce County Pub. Transp. Benefit Auth. Corp., 90 Wn.App. 468, 474 (1998). Employers need not take all possible, measures of corrective action.
Because Plaintiff's discrimination claims are subject to summary judgment, Plaintiff cannot maintain a negligent supervision claim based upon the success of those claims. See Herried v. Pierce County Public Transp. Ben. Authority Corp., 90 Wn. App. 468, 478 (1998) ("Since Herried has not produced proof that she was the subject of gender-based discrimination, she cannot claim that Pierce Transit was negligent in supervising an employee who allegedly discriminated."). Defendants' motion is therefore granted as to Plaintiff's negligent supervision claim.
Although Defendant QP3 argues that the employee must himself be found liable in order for liability to attach to the employer, the authority it cites in support of this proposition states only that in order to hold an employer liable for discrimination on a negligent supervision claim, the plaintiff must first establish that she was subjected to discrimination. Herried v. Pierce County Pub. Transp. Benefit Auth. Corp., 957 P.2d 767, 771 (Wash.Ct.App. 1998). Compare Zwink v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 536 P.2d 13, 17 (Wash.Ct.App. 1975) (stating that the defendant railroad was liable for the acts and omissions of a flagman acting within the scope of his employment, without reference to whether the flagman had been found to be "liable").
In any case, both Mr. Sermonia's emotional distress and negligent supervision claims fail because they are duplicative of his retaliation and hostile work environment claims. Francom v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 991 P.2d 1182, 1192 (Wash.Ct.App. 2000) (holding that the trial court properly dismissed emotional distress and negligent supervision claims as duplicative because both claims derived from the same set of facts as the plaintiff's employment discrimination claim);see also Herried v. Pierce County Transp., 957 P.2d 767, 771 (Wash.Ct.App. 1998) (holding that negligent supervision claim was foreclosed by court's ruling on discrimination claim: "[s]ince [plaintiff] has not produced proof that she was the subject of gender-based discrimination she cannot claim that [defendant] was negligent in supervising an employee who allegedly discriminated."). Mr. Sermonia does not allege any non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory conduct on the part of Mr. Bristow to support a separate cause of action for negligence.Francom, 991 P.2d at 1192.