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

1,790 chars

performance.” This proposed clarification relied on the law as explained in

Glasgow, 103 Wn.2d at 406-07.

The court declined to offer the hospital’s proposed language, concerned

that highlighting certain things for the jury to consider would be the court improperly

commenting on the evidence. We hold that this ruling was not in error.

The hospital’s proposed instruction did not define “conditions of

employment,” as the jury had requested. The instruction instead offered examples

of evidence that the jury may consider. The court was correct to avoid instructing

the jury to place more weight on certain evidence. See In re Det. of R.W., 98 Wn.

App. 140, 144, 988 P.2d 1034 (1999) (holding that the trial court impermissibly

6 The hospital claims that this question is evidence that removing “harassment”

from the jury instructions confused the jury. We disagree. WPI 330.23 defines
harassment as conduct or language “so offensive or pervasive that it altered the
conditions of . . . employment.” It is circular reasoning to conclude that the defining
“conditions of employment” for the jury would require the word “harassment.”
18
No. 87793-3-I/19

comments on the evidence if it “instructs the jury as to the weight that should be

given certain evidence.”).

Thus, each of the various challenges the hospital brings to Danielson’s first

cause of action fail.

B. Retaliation

The hospital next claims that the court erred when it denied its motion for

judgment as a matter of law on Danielson’s claim of retaliation. We disagree.

“When reviewing an order granting or denying a motion for judgment as a

matter of law, this court applies the same standard as the trial court, determining

whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving