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

investigatory in nature. Appellant' s Br. at 24 -25 ( citing Kirby, 124 Wn. App. at 465 ( employment
events that were disciplinary or investigatory in nature did not constitute adverse employment

actions where there were mere inconveniences that did not have a tangible impact on the plaintiff' s

workload or pay)). We express no opinion as to whether these employment actions, taken

However, taken in,
individually, constituted adverse employment actions as a matter of law.

context, a reasonable jury could find that these actions, taken together, were materially adverse.

Boyd presented substantial evidence for the jury to find that these actions would have dissuaded a

reasonable worker from making a discrimination charge.. See Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68.
B. Jury Instruction

WSH further argues that the trial court's adverse employment action jury instruction was

contrary to law. The trial court' s instruction was:

An adverse employment action is defined as an employment action or
decision that constitutes an adverse change in the circumstances of employment.
An employment action is adverse if it is harmful to the point that it would dissuade
a reasonable employee from making complaints of sexual harassment or retaliation.

10
             

45174 -3 - II

An adverse employment action must involve a change in employment conditions
that is more than an inconvenience or alteration of job responsibilities.

CP at 2160.. At trial, WSH objected to the instruction because the second sentence is derived from

federal case law.

The trial court used language from the Supreme Court' s opinion in Burlington, 548 U.S.