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

1,740 chars

Morgan, 536 U.S. at 117). Since we hold that the slur is a part of the same hostile

work environment that continued until Danielson resigned in 2020, the slur is

relevant to the hostile work environment claim.

It is true that racial slurs can be highly prejudicial, but, given the nature of

this case, the slur has high probative value and it is not an abuse of discretion to

find that it was not “unfair” prejudice to hold leadership to the words it chooses to

use. Thus, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it as

evidence of a hostile work environment. Degroot, 83 Wn. App. at 128.

The hospital next argues that the court erred when it declined to give a

limiting instruction regarding the jury’s consideration of the Covington report. We

again find no abuse of discretion.

The Covington report included a finding that the hospital did not “adequately

investigate or address” the allegation of Dr. Hendricks referring to Danielson with

a racial slur. The hospital moved to exclude the Covington report from evidence

under ER 407. The court denied the motion. The hospital then asked the court to

provide a limiting instruction clarifying report should not be considered as proof of

culpability. The court again denied the motion.

The hospital argues that the court should have instructed the jury that the

Covington report “could not be considered as evidence of culpable conduct.” It

claims that the Covington report was a remedial measure and therefore cannot be

14
No. 87793-3-I/15

used as evidence of liability under ER 407.

“When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would

have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is