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

1,757 chars

Hospital, No. 87793-3-I (April 10, 2026), at 4 min., 45 sec. through 4 min., 59 sec.,

video recording by TVW, Washington State’s Public Affairs Network,

https://tvw.org/video/division-1-court-of-appeals-

2026041013/?eventID=2026041013.

In Antonius, our Supreme Court rejected the continuing violation doctrine,

which required a “substantial relationship between the timely and untimely

conduct[.]” 153 Wn.2d at 262. The court held instead that “some relationship” is

required between acts constituting the same hostile work environment. Id. at 271.

The jury was correctly instructed that they may “consider conduct occurring

prior to July 17, 2020, only if it is part of the same hostile work environment as at

least one act that took place after July 17, 2020.” See Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115

(“Provided that an act contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period, the

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

purposes of determining liability.”). We hold that it was the jury’s role to determine

whether the racial slur in 2007 was part of a hostile work environment that

continued until 2020. See Loeffelholz, 175 Wn.2d at 276–77 (“a reasonable juror

could infer from these events that the ‘angry man’ comment was a natural

extension of the conduct that made up the preamendment oppressive work

8
No. 87793-3-I/9

environment.”). It is the reviewing court’s role to review such an inference for

substantial evidence. See Burnside, 123 Wn.2d at 107-08.

The hospital claimed at oral argument that “there is absolutely no

suggestion that Dr. Danielson was being considered any differently by any of his

colleagues within the statute of limitations.” Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral argument,