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

1,771 chars

work environment[.]” Id. We therefore decline to weigh the totality of the

circumstances, deferring instead to the jury’s determination.

In addition to his individual experience, Danielson also presented evidence

of systemic racism affecting both patients and employees of the hospital.

Supervisors gave employees of color “across the board” lower performance

reviews than their white peers. The OBCC building itself was not maintained as

well as the hospital’s main building. Unlike other clinics, OBCC had to rely on

donations for funding. The hospital used a “Code Purple” to call security

disproportionately on Black families. Hospital staff mistreated children with sickle

cell anemia, labeling them as “drug seeking.” Danielson testified that he

experienced “secondary trauma” from witnessing the racist treatment of “people

with [his] background.”

Danielson argues that the unaddressed systemic racism is additional

evidence of a hostile work environment. The hospital responds that evidence of

“[s]ystemic implicit bias”, “failure to fully eliminate institutional racial disparities”, or

“racially motivated” funding decisions, cannot be evidence of a hostile work

environment because they are not evidence of individual harm or harassment.

But, because Danielson provides substantial evidence of a hostile work

environment by describing how employees treated him individually, we may affirm

based on said evidence. Truck Ins. Exch. v. Vanport Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751,

766, 58 P.3d 276 (2002) (“We may affirm the trial court on any grounds established

12
No. 87793-3-I/13

by the pleadings and supported by the record.”). “‘Principles of judicial restraint

dictate that if resolution of an issue effectively disposes of a case, we should