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

1,751 chars

time period of the hostile environment may be considered by a court for the

purposes of determining liability.” Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d 256, 264,

103 P.3d 729 (2004) (quoting Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101,

117, 122 S. Ct. 2061, 153 L. Ed. 2d 106 (2002)). A hostile work environment

“‘occurs over a series of days or perhaps years and, in direct contrast to discrete

acts, a single act of harassment may not be actionable on its own . . . Such claims

are based on the cumulative effect of individual acts.’” Id. (alteration in original)

(quoting Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115).

The hospital in response argues that Danielson did not show that the racial

slur was part of the same hostile work environment because he failed to present

“specific material facts showing similarly offensive language or conduct after July

17, 2020.” (Emphasis omitted.) They claim that, because Danielson admitted that

he had no knowledge that anyone else had “ever used racially discriminatory

language about him,” he lacked evidence that any hostile work environment

continued into 2020.

3 Although the hospital disputed Hendricks’s use of the slur at trial, it concedes that

following the jury’s verdict, the reviewing court presumes that Hendricks did in fact
use the slur to refer to Danielson.
7
No. 87793-3-I/8

But “[t]he standard for linking discriminatory acts together in the hostile work

environment context is not high.” Loeffelholz v. Univ. of Wash., 175 Wn.2d 264,

276, 285 P.3d 854 (2012). Danielson need not present evidence, as the hospital

claimed at oral argument, of a specific slur was directed at him within the statute

of limitations. Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral argument, Danielson v. Seattle Children’s