Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877933 Order and Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877933 Order and Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/877933%20Order%20and%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,727 chars

had not adequately investigated the allegation that Danielson was called by a racial

slur, and that the hospital work environment “excludes and undervalues BIPOC

workforce members.”

Danielson sued the hospital under WLAD, claiming both a hostile work

environment and retaliation. The hospital moved for summary judgment, which

the court denied. After a 16-day trial, the jury returned a ten-to-two verdict of $21

million for Danielson. The court then denied the hospital’s motions for judgment

as a matter of law, for a new trial, and for remittitur. The hospital timely appeals.

II. ANALYSIS

WLAD makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an

employee because of race. RCW 49.60.180(3). RCW 49.60.030(2) allows an

employee subjected to discrimination to bring a civil action against their employer.

WLAD is to be “construed liberally to effectuate its purpose of remedying

discrimination.” Gibson v. Costco Wholesale, Inc., 17 Wn. App. 2d 543, 556, 488

P.3d 869 (2021) (citing Clipse v. Commercial Driver Servs., Inc., 189 Wn. App.

776, 790, 358 P.3d 464 (2015)).

A. Hostile Work Environment

The hospital makes various arguments in support of reversal of the jury

verdict finding a hostile work environment. First, it claims that the trial court erred

3
No. 87793-3-I/4

when it denied its motions for summary judgment, directed verdict, and judgment

as a matter of law. Second, the hospital claims that the court abused its discretion

when it admitted evidence of the racial slur and did not give a limiting instruction

regarding the findings of the Covington report. Third, the hospital argues that the

court gave an improper jury instruction. We hold that the court did not err in any