The county placed Verduzco on administrative leave with no definite end date.
Verduzco was paid, but he was not permitted in the DNRP offices, the door codes
to access the building were changed, and investigations into his conduct and
complaints continued. This went on for five months. Ultimately, the county
decided to issue a five day suspension without pay as a consequence for Verduzco’s
“inappropriate” e-mails and behavior. CP at 1679.
After five months’ administrative leave and five days’ unpaid suspension,
Verduzco was permitted to return to work. He was placed in a different role
5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Verduzco v. King County
No. 103749-0
at DNRP upon his return. Though his job classification and pay did not change, he
had less responsibility, and so the reassignment felt like a demotion. Together,
the investigations, administrative leave, suspension, and reassignment made
Verduzco feel humiliated, anxious, and silenced.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Verduzco sued the county, bringing claims of discrimination based on
race, ethnicity, and disability, and a claim of retaliation under the WLAD.
The parties proceeded to a jury trial where the jury was instructed as to all claims.
The WPI offers pattern jury instructions for both retaliation and
discrimination claims under the WLAD. The pattern instructions suggest
different definitions of an “adverse employment action” for each cause of action.
In the WPI “retaliation” section, the definitional instruction states: