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

1,724 chars

party, substantial evidence exists to support the verdict for the nonmoving party.”

Grove v. PeaceHealth St. Joseph Hosp., 182 Wn.2d 136, 143, 341 P.3d 261

(2014).

The hospital claims that “[n]o reasonable juror could find that Children’s

retaliated against Dr. Danielson by initiating an investigation six months after he

spoke out regarding the Odessa Brown project at the September 2019 Board

meeting.” We disagree and hold that the jury’s finding of retaliation is supported

by substantial evidence.

WLAD prohibits employers from “retaliating against employees who oppose

discriminatory practices.” Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403, 411, 430

P.3d 229 (2018) (citing RCW 49.60.210(1)). “To establish a prima facie case of

retaliation, an employee must show three things: (1) the employee took a statutorily

protected action, (2) the employee suffered an adverse employment action, and

19
No. 87793-3-I/20

(3) a causal link between the employee's protected activity and the adverse

employment action.” Id. at 411.

We hold that Danielson engaged in a protected action when he expressed

the belief that the hospital was not keeping funding commitments to the African

American community that the clinic served. 7 A statutorily protected action occurs

if an employee opposes a practice that “he reasonably believed to be

discriminatory.” Alonso v. Qwest Commc'ns Co., LLC, 178 Wn. App. 734, 754,

315 P.3d 610 (2013). If the employee alleges racial discrimination, the practice or

action must include some reference to race. See id.

Danielson testified at trial that, at a board meeting in September 2019, he

expressed concern that the hospital was deprioritizing funding that would serve the