Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 45174-3-II Order Publishing Opinion.pdf

state statute. Kumar v. Gate Gourmet Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 491, 325 P. 3d 193 ( 2014) ( quoting

Grimwood v. Univ. of Puget Sound, Inc., 110 Wn.2d 355, 361 - 62, 753 P. 2d 517 ( 1988)). Federal

law provides that context matters in analyzing the significance of any given act of retaliation

because "` [ a] n act that would be immaterial in some situations is material in others. "' Burlington

N. & Santa Fe Ry Co., 548 U.S. at 69 ( quoting Wash. v. Illinois Dep' t of Revenue, 420 F.3d 658,

661 ( 7th Cir. 2005)). Accordingly, whether a particular action would be viewed as adverse by a
reasonable employee is a question of fact appropriate for a jury. See Burlington, 548 U.S. at 71-

9
             

45174 -3 -II

73; McArdle v. Dell Products, L.P., 293 F. Appx. 331, 337 ( 5th Cir. 2008) ( " Whether a reasonable

employee would view the challenged action as materially adverse involves questions of fact

generally left for a jury to decide. ").

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Boyd, there is substantial
evidence WSH engaged in adverse employment actions. See Schmidt, 162 Wn.2d at 491, 493.

Boyd presented evidence that WSH suspended him for two weeks without pay, issued a written

reprimand that contained a detailed list of his alleged threatening comments and disseminated it to

his supervisor, removed Boyd from his ward and from patient interaction, and reported him to the

Department of Health and the police. WSH argues that some of these actions were not adverse

employment actions; rather, they were " legitimate business decisions" that .were disciplinary or