Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 45174-3-II Order Publishing Opinion.pdf

The jury found that WSH had retaliated against Boyd and awarded him $ 173, 000. WSH

appeals.

ANALYSIS

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a trial court' s denial of a CR 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo,

engaging in the same inquiry as the trial court. Schmidt v. Coogan, 162 Wn.2d 488, 491, 173 P. 3d
273 ( 2007). Judgment as a matter of law is proper only when, viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the nonmoving party, substantial evidence cannot support a verdict for the

nonmoving party. Schmidt, 162 Wn.2d at 491, 493.

We review alleged errors of law in jury instructions de novo. Blaney v. Int' l Ass 'n of

Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Dist. No. 160, 151 Wn.2d 203, 210, 87 P. 3d 757 ( 2004). Jury

instructions are proper when they permit the parties to argue their theories of the case, do not

mislead the jury, and properly inform the jury of applicable law. Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127
Wn.2d 67, 92, 896 P. 2d 682 ( 1995).

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation for a protected activity under the WLAD4, an

employee must show that ( 1) he engaged in a statutorily protected activity, (2) the employer took

an adverse employment action against the employee, and ( 3) there is a causal connection between

4
It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other
person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he
or she has opposed any practices forbidden by this chapter, or because he or she has
filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter.

RCW 49. 60. 210( 1).
             

45174 -3 -1I