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

1,729 chars

resolve the case on that basis without reaching any other issues that might be

presented.’” Wash. State Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Gregoire, 162 Wn.2d 284, 307,

174 P.3d 1142 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hayden v. Mut.

of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 141 Wn.2d 55, 68, 1 P.3d 1167 (2000)). Thus, we need not

and do not address whether evidence of racial disparities, implicit bias, and

systemic inequity that were not directed at Danielson individually are evidence of

a hostile work environment.

2. Evidentiary Rulings

The hospital assigns error to two of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. We

review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Helmbreck v. McPhee, 15

Wn. App. 2d 41, 55, 476 P.3d 589 (2020).

The hospital argues that the court abused its discretion under ER 403 when

it admitted evidence of the racial slur that occurred before the three-year WLAD

statute of limitations.

Relevant evidence should be excluded if “its probative value is substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or

misleading the jury[.]” ER 403. We give great deference to the trial court’s

“balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect” in ER 403 rulings. Degroot

v. Berkley Constr., Inc., 83 Wn. App. 125, 128, 920 P.2d 619 (1996).

Since racism is the central issue to this case, the racial slur has high

probative value. The hospital argues that it is too remote in time to be relevant,

13
No. 87793-3-I/14

but as we addressed supra, as long as one event “occurs within the filing period,

the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered by a court for

the purposes of determining liability.” Antonius, 153 Wn.2d at 264 (quoting