ethnicity, or disability. RCW 49.60.030(1)(a), .010. It also prohibits employers
from retaliating against someone who opposes acts of discrimination.
RCW 49.60.210(1).
Only Verduzco’s retaliation claim is at issue here. The WLAD’s retaliation
provision declares it an unfair practice for an employer “to discharge, expel, or
2
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2057052-1-
II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf
8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Verduzco v. King County
No. 103749-0
otherwise discriminate against any person because [they have] opposed
any practices forbidden by this chapter.” Id. A prima facie showing of retaliation
requires (1) the employee took a statutorily protected action, (2) they suffered
an adverse employment action, and (3) there is a causal link between their
protected activity and the adverse employment action. Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp.,
192 Wn.2d 403, 411, 430 P.3d 229 (2018) (citing Currier v. Northland Servs., Inc.,
182 Wn. App. 733, 742, 332 P.3d 1006 (2014); Wilmot v. Kaiser Alum. & Chem.
Corp., 118 Wn.2d 46, 68, 821 P.2d 18 (1991)).
The county conceded the suspension was an adverse action but argued
the other actions were not adverse. 18 VRP at 2500; Opening Br. of Appellant/
Cross-Resp’t King County at 44 (Wash. Ct. App. No 57052-1-II (2023)). The parties
do not dispute any other element of the retaliation claim. Nor do the parties ask this
court to define an adverse action under the WLAD as a matter of law.3 Our review
is limited to the sufficiency of the jury instruction that stated both pattern definitions.