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

53, a Title VII retaliation case, in the adverse employment action instruction. The Burlington court

held that " a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged

action materially adverse, ` which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable

worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. "' 548 U.S. at 68 ( quoting Rochon,

438 F. 3d at 1219) ( citations omitted). Washington courts look to federal case law interpreting

Title VII to guide interpretations of the WLAD. Kumar, 180 Wn.2d at 491; see also Tyner, 137

Wn. App. at 565 ( citing Burlington, 548 U. S. at 68); Kirby, 124 Wn. App. at 465 ( citing federal

cases as guidance for determining whether an event is an adverse employment action). Therefore,

the trial court properly incorporated the Burlington language into its instruction and did not err.
C. Verdict Form

Next, WSH argues that the trial court erred when it used a simpler verdict form and not

WSH' s 17- question proposed verdict form.5 This argument is based on WSH' s assertion that the

trial court erred by failing to limit the alleged adverse employment actions presented to the jury.
WSH cites Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wn.2d 521, 539, 70 P. 3d 126 ( 2003), to support its

argument. The Davis court stated that " where a general verdict is rendered in a multitheory case

and one of the theories is later invalidated, remand must be granted if the defendant purposed a

5 Boyd argues that WSH did not preserve an objection to the verdict form. We disagree. Although
WSH ultimately accepted the trial court' s verdict form, this.was after WSH proposed and argued
for a different verdict form.

11
             

45174 -3 -II