Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877933 Order and Opinion.pdf

review of [his] leadership” and work with an executive leadership coach. Danielson

testified that he knew from experience that the hospital used these tools to “push

[employees] out.” Danielson also testified that at the same time the hospital

recommended the coaching, they demoted him from a director role to an advisory

role. Danielson’s testimony of the expanded investigation and demotion could lead

a jury to conclude that Danielson suffered an adverse employment action.

In response, the hospital points to testimony that the 360 review and

leadership coach were not a punishment and that the letter stating that Danielson’s

role was advisory was a clarification instead of demotion. Such evidence was for

the jury to consider when they determine the factual question of whether Danielson

suffered an adverse employment action. See Alonso, 178 Wn. App. at 747. This

court should not substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Gorman, 176 Wn. App.

21
No. 87793-3-I/22

at 87.

The hospital next claims that Danielson did not present evidence of

retaliatory animus or of a causal link between the protected activity and the alleged

adverse employment action. We disagree.

The causal link for a retaliation claim is usually supported by circumstantial

evidence, since an “‘employer is not apt to announce retaliation as his motive.’”

Cornwell, 192 Wn.2d at 411 (quoting Wilmot v. Kaiser Alum. & Chem., 118 Wn.2d

46, 69, 821 P.2d 18 (1991)).

Danielson believed that his demotion was “retaliation for . . . speaking up at

a board meeting.” In response, the hospital points to evidence that Danielson had

been vocal about racial inequities in the healthcare system for several years before

the incident at the board meeting, all without any alleged retaliation. They also