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

1,747 chars

That this conduct or language was so offensive or pervasive that it altered the

conditions of (name of plaintiff)'s employment.” WPI 330.23 at 350 (emphasis

added).

Here, the language describing the elements that Danielson would need to

prove to meet his burden remained unchanged. The amended jury instructions

therefore correctly stated the law and placed the correct burden on Danielson,

even if they do not exactly match the WPI.

The hospital was able to argue its case that Danielson had failed to present

evidence “proving that . . . [racism] altered the conditions of his employment.” The

hospital does not show that the jury instructions prejudiced its ability to present its

case. Griffin, 143 Wn.2d at 91. Since the jury instructions informed the jury of the

applicable law and allowed each party to argue its case theory, we find no error in

the challenged jury instructions. Helmbreck, 15 Wn. App. 2d at 57.

The hospital further argues that the court “exacerbated its error” when it

17
No. 87793-3-I/18

declined to provide the hospital’s proposed clarifying instruction to the jury. We

disagree.

During deliberations, the jury asked, “What does the term conditions of

employment mean?” 6 The hospital proposed offering the following clarifying

language: “Conduct affects the terms or conditions of employment i[f] it is

sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive

work environment. Whether conduct meets this test depends on the ‘totality of the

circumstances’, including the frequency and severity of harassing conduct,

whether it was physically threatening or humiliating or merely an offensive

utterance, and whether it unreasonably interfered with the employee’s work