Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/723421.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,450 chars

7"I'm not going to make any rulings at this point as to whether or not the door has been
opened on the age claim. At this point, I'll hold the line on that as well as what happens
tomorrow."
             
No. 72342-1-1/9

However, there has been evidence, quite a bit of evidence,
regarding age within the context of the retaliation claim. I'm thinking
particularly of the evidence that came in yesterday in the cross-
examination of Mr. Shenk regarding the fact that Mr. Shenk turned
to Gillett, Brotman, and whoever the third member was of the
executive team who were the younger members of the team, and
the argument was that they wouldn't have stood up to him. That
was one inference that could be drawn from it. I think that's an
example of the jury hearing evidence regarding age and not
knowing what to do with it.
[Corbis's counsel] has persuaded me that just as Mr. Lodis
needs to be protected from what I refer to as "shortcuts," I think
Corbis also needs to be protected from the opposite thinking, which
is, Well, we think that Mr. Shenk engaged in age discrimination by
going to the younger members of the team, for example.
So I think the jury needs some kind of a limiting instruction
that tells them that the two issues are entirely separate.

After ruling that evidence of the jury verdict was admissible, the trial court

gave the jury a limiting instruction as follows: