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

clarifying special verdict form." 149 Wn.2d at 539. But, as discussed above, the trial court did

not err when it allowed Boyd to present all of his alleged adverse employment actions to the jury.

Therefore, Davis is inapposite and this argument fails.

Further, a trial court' s refusal to submit a special verdict form based on the facts of that

case isreviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Lucky, 128 Wn.2d 727, 731, 912 P. 2d 483 ( 1996),

overruled on other grounds by State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541, 947 P. 2d 700 ( 1997). A trial court

abuses its discretion when its discretionary decision is " manifestly unreasonable or based upon

untenable grounds or reasons." Davis v. Globe Mach. Mfg. Co., 102 Wn.2d 68, 77, 684 P. 2d 692

1984) ( citing State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P. 2d 775 ( 1971)). Here, the

trial court stated it was " concerned" the special verdict form had " too many questions, that it' s

broken down too much." 12 RP at 1828. The trial court made it clear that, in light of the facts of

this case, WSH' s proposed jury form was not " something that a jury could work with." 12 RP at

1832. WSH' s proposed 17- question special verdict form is cumulative and confusing. Many of

the questions overlap with the jury instructions provided and require the jurors to answer the

questions out of order. Therefore, the trial court' s decision to not give WSH' s special verdict fowl

was reasonable and exercised on tenable grounds. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.

III. CAUSAL CONNECTION

WSH next argues that the trial court erred when it denied WSH' s CR 50 motion because

Boyd failed to provide evidence establishing a causal connection between his activity and WSH' s