In closing arguments, Verduzco contended the county took numerous adverse
actions against him: multiple investigations, administrative leave, suspension
without pay, and effective demotion. The county, on the other hand, argued the only
adverse action was the unpaid suspension. 18 VRP at 2500. It asserted both the
discrimination claims and the retaliation claim should fail anyway because the
county suspended Verduzco for his “unprofessional conduct,” rather than his race,
ethnicity, disability, or reasonable opposition to discrimination. Id. at 2509-11.
The jury found the county did not discriminate against Verduzco based on his
race, ethnicity, or disability. But it found the county did retaliate against him.
7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Verduzco v. King County
No. 103749-0
The county appealed, assigning error to instruction 8 and several
other independent issues. Specifically, it raised the issue of whether the instruction
was likely to confuse or mislead the jury regarding the retaliation claim.
Verduzco cross-appealed regarding the calculation of attorney fees.
The Court of Appeals reversed. Verduzco v. King County, No. 57052-1-II,
slip op. at 1 (Wash. Ct. App. July 30, 2024) (unpublished). 2 It concluded
that instruction 8 was erroneous and reversed and remanded the retaliation claim
for a new trial. Id. at 27. The court declined to reach the remaining issues raised by
the parties on appeal. Id. at 1. We granted review. 4 Wn.3d 1015 (2025).
ANALYSIS
The WLAD recognizes a civil right to be free from discrimination.
RCW 49.60.030(1). This civil right encompasses the right to obtain and
hold employment without discrimination relating to protected statuses, such as race,