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

cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable." Staub, 131 S. Ct. at 1194

footnotes omitted). Under Washington law, in order for the act to be a proximate cause, it must

be a substantial factor. City of Vancouver v. Wash. Pub. Emp' t Relations Comm' n, 180 Wn. App.

333, 356, 325 P. 3d 213 ( 2014) ( " a complainant seeking to use the subordinate bias theory of

liability must show that the subordinate' s animus was a substantial factor in the decision "). The

trial court' s instruction properly informed the jury of the law. It required the plaintiff to prove that

the supervisor' s animus was a substantial factor in the decision. The trial court did not err when

it gave the cat' s paw instruction.

V. PRETEXT

Finally, Boyd met his burden of showing that WSH' s reasons for disciplining him were
pretext. See Estevez, 129 Wn. App. at 798. WSH presented nondiscriminatory reasons for

disciplining Boyd: he failed to timely assess a patient and he made inappropriate comments. Boyd
then presented evidence that the reasons were pretext. Maddox told Boyd she would retaliate, he

was the 'only employee disciplined for inappropriate comments even though other employees were

engaged in the conversations, and WSH disciplined him for making threatening statements even

though it had notice of Maddox' s bias and failed to conduct a thorough independent investigation.

Once " the record contains reasonable but competing inferences of both discrimination and

nondiscrimination, ` it is the jury' s task to choose between such inferences. "' Estevez, 129 Wn.

App. at 798 ( quoting Hill, 144 Wn.2d at 186). Juries are empaneled to determine credibility of

witnesses and to weigh evidence. We do not disturb those on appeal. State v. Camarillo, 115