Taylor v. Metropolitan Development Council, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 17, 2026
• Docket: 24-2207
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 17 2026

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAUREEN TAYLOR, No. 24-2207

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05509-JCC

v. MEMORANDUM* METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, INC., a Washington State nonprofit organization,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 12, 2026** Seattle, Washington

Before: W. FLETCHER, PAEZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Maureen Taylor appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor

of the Metropolitan Development Council (“MDC”). We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Huntsman v. Corp. of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Saints, 127 F.4th 784, 789 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to MDC on

Taylor’s claim for breach of the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). The

CBA provides, “No employee will be disciplined or discharged without just

cause.” “‘Just cause’ may include the concept of progressive discipline such as

verbal and written discipline, suspension without pay, or other discipline as issued

by the Employer.” The CBA further provides that “[e]mployees agree to comply

with MDC’s published work rules and code of conduct.”

MDC had just cause to terminate Taylor because it had received a substantial

number of patient and coworker complaints about her conduct. MDC investigated

the complaints, determined they had merit, and concluded that Taylor’s conduct

violated MDC’s published work rules and code of conduct. Furthermore, Taylor

received progressive discipline because she attended four Weingarten meetings,

was brought back from administrative leave after MDC found insufficient evidence

to warrant discipline, and was terminated only after MDC concluded that a new

wave of complaints against her had merit.

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to MDC on

Taylor’s state law claims. Assuming without deciding that Taylor established a

prima facie case of retaliation or wrongful discharge in violation of public policy,

MDC, in relying on patient and coworker complaints, provided a legitimate,

2 nonretaliatory reason for Taylor’s administrative leave and termination. Scrivener

v. Clark Coll., 334 P.3d 541, 546 (Wash. 2014); Martin v. Gonzaga Univ., 425

P.3d 837, 843–44 (Wash. 2018). Taylor failed to rebut this reason.

AFFIRMED.