applicable law.” Bodin v. City of Stanwood, 130 Wn.2d 726, 732, 927 P.2d 240
(1996). A jury instruction is erroneous if any of those elements are absent.
Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 851, 860, 281 P.3d 289
(2012). “An erroneous instruction is reversible error only if it prejudices
a party. Prejudice is presumed if the instruction contains a clear misstatement of law;
prejudice must be demonstrated if the instruction is merely misleading.” Id.
(citation omitted) (citing Joyce, 155 Wn.2d at 323; Keller v. City of Spokane,
146 Wn.2d 237, 249-50, 44 P.3d 845 (2002)). The county challenged jury instruction
Jin Zhu v. N. Cent. Educ. Serv. Dist.—ESD 171, 189 Wn.2d 607, 613, 404 P.3d 504 (2017). While
Washington courts sometimes regard federal law as persuasive, federal case law is “not binding
on this court, which is ‘free to adopt those theories and rationale which best further the purposes
and mandates of our state statute.’” Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 491, 325 P.3d
193 (2014) (quoting Grimwood v. Univ. of Puget Sound, Inc., 110 Wn.2d 355, 361-62, 753 P.2d
517 (1988)). In light of the WLAD’s command for liberal construction, RCW 49.60.020, “[w]here
this court has departed from federal antidiscrimination statute precedent, . . . it has almost always
ruled that the WLAD provides greater employee protections than its federal counterparts.” Id. We
have yet to consider the contours of a retaliatory action under Washington law. Given that the
parties here do not ask us to define an adverse action under the WLAD in order to resolve this
dispute, we will not reach that question at this time.
10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Verduzco v. King County
No. 103749-0