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

1,756 chars

supra at 5 min., 40 sec. through 5 min., 59 sec. We disagree. Danielson testified

that “throughout” his employment, he was “both criticized for saying too much and

saying too little” due to his race. He testified that “[t]here was never a time, during

[his] entire twenty-one-year tenure at—at OBCC as medical director, where [he]

believed that a hostile work environment did not exist.” He also testified that he

heard the CEO “talk glowingly” about Dr. Hendricks even after Hendricks’ use of

the racial slur was reported and supposedly investigated. He testified that “starting

from 2015 forward, [he] believed that Dr. Jeff Sperring subjected [him] to

discriminatory behavior.”

Taken in the context of the hospital’s choice to ignore a racial slur, a

reasonable juror could infer that the later discrimination Danielson described was

a “natural extension of the conduct that made up the . . . oppressive work

environment” that existed prior to July 2020. See Loeffelholz, 175 Wn.2d at 276.

At oral argument, the hospital attempted to factually distinguish Loeffelholz.

Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral argument, supra at 18 min., 40 sec. through 20 min., 15

sec. It points out that Loeffelholz was denied overtime and training opportunities,

a specific harm due to her sexual orientation. Loeffelholz, 175 Wn.2d at 268.

But a racial slur is also specific harm which, as the hospital conceded at

9
No. 87793-3-I/10

oral argument, could serve as a basis for liability due to a hostile work environment.

Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral argument, supra at 1 min., 35 sec. through 1 min., 47

sec. Our Supreme Court held in Loeffelholz that, even though the specific harm

occurred before the period of liability, it was part of the same hostile work