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

1,747 chars

of a hostile work environment. But the court in Crownover held that “[a]cts that are

‘so discrete in time or circumstances’ . . . do not constitute a single hostile work

environment.” 165 Wn. App. at 144 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting

Lucas v. Chi. Transit Auth., 367 F.3d 714, 727 (7th Cir. 2004)). But Danielson did

not present evidence of the racial slur is as a “discrete” event. Danielson presented

the racial slur as evidence of discrimination that lasted for his entire employment.

Examining the totality of the circumstances, the evidence in this case could

“persuade a rational, fair-minded person” that Danielson was subjected to a hostile

work environment. Winbun, 143 Wn.2d at 213 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Finally, the hospital cites Scaife v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 49 F.4th

1109, 1117 (7th Cir. 2022), in which the Seventh Circuit affirmed a dismissal of the

hostile work environment claim when a supervisor used a racial slur one time

outside the employee’s presence. Although the hospital claims that Scaife

supports their argument that “a single racial slur that the plaintiff did not personally

experience cannot create a hostile work environment,” the Seventh Circuit

acknowledged that a one-time use of an epithet could in some circumstances

warrant liability. 49 F.4th at 1116. Unlike Danielson, who testified that he

experienced discrimination and implicit bias from other employees of the hospital,

the employee in Scaife relied on the racial slur as the only evidence of a hostile

11
No. 87793-3-I/12

work environment based on race. Id. The case also states that “racial epithets do

not always have to be stated directly to a plaintiff to create an objectively hostile