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

1,747 chars

Members of the jury, during this trial, you have heard that a
prior jury found Mr. Lodis's termination was not the result of age
discrimination. You must keep in mind that this is a retaliation case,
not an age discrimination case. The issue of whether the
defendants engaged in age discrimination is not before you and
should not be considered by you in evaluating Mr. Lodis's
retaliation claim.
With respect to retaliation, the issues you must decide are,
one, whether Mr. Lodis reasonably believed that Mr. Shenk made
ageist comments; and, two, whether Mr. Lodis's alleged
expressions of concern to Mr. Shenk about these comments was a
substantial factor in his termination.
That concludes the instruction. Thank you.

c. The Trial Court Precludes Lodis from Relitigating Whether He
Breached a Fiduciary Duty.

Corbis's motion in limine regarding Lodis's prior breach of fiduciary duty

sought to prohibit Lodis from denying that such breach had occurred—a fact

established in two prior trials before two prior juries. Corbis contended that

Lodis's breach of fiduciary duty was directly relevant to its after-acquired
             
No. 72342-1-1/10

evidence defense, in that Lodis's misconduct would have otherwise led to a

justified termination, thereby limiting any damages he could recover for what he

was alleging to be a wrongful, retaliatory termination. In litigating this defense,

Corbis argued that Lodis should be prohibited under the legal doctrines of law of

the case and collateral estoppel from denying that his failure to record vacation

time constituted a breach of his fiduciary duties to Corbis.

Judge Heller granted Corbis's motion, reasoning as follows: