Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877933 Order and Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877933 Order and Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/877933%20Order%20and%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,742 chars

Winbun, 143 Wn.2d at 213.

The hospital claims that Danielson’s hostile work environment claim fails

because Danielson “presented no evidence of racially-motivated workplace

harassment.” By way of summary only, we hold that, at a minimum, Danielson’s

testimony—that (a) hospital staff doubted his competence due to his race and (b)

the hospital did not adequately address a racial slur directly aimed at Danielson—

alone or together could persuade a rational juror that Danielson was subjected to

a hostile work environment. Winbun, 143 Wn.2d at 213. A juror could reasonably

conclude from the totality of those circumstances that Danielson experienced

harassment that affected the conditions of his employment. Blackburn v. Dep’t of

Social & Health Servs., 186 Wn.2d 250, 260, 375 P.3d 1076 (2016). Those two

pieces of evidence alone or together are substantial evidence to support the jury’s

verdict.

“An employee must demonstrate four elements for a hostile work

environment claim: that the harassment (1) was unwelcome, (2) was because of a

protected characteristic, (3) affected the terms or conditions of employment, and

(4) is imputable to the employer.” Id. at 260 (citing Glasgow v. Ga.-Pac. Corp.,

5
No. 87793-3-I/6

103 Wn.2d 401, 406-07, 693 P.2d 708 (1985)). The hospital claims that Danielson

failed to demonstrate harassment that affected the terms or conditions of

employment.

Whether the conduct affected the “terms and conditions of employment” is

generally a question of fact for the jury to determine by examining the “totality of

the circumstances.” Davis v. Fred’s Appliance, Inc., 171 Wn. App. 348, 362, 287

P.3d 51 (2012).

Danielson argued that he experienced a hostile work environment because