The term “adverse” means unfavorable or disadvantageous. An
employment action is adverse if it is harmful to the point that it would
dissuade a reasonable employee from making a complaint of
[discrimination] [harassment] [and] [or] [retaliation]. Whether a
particular action is adverse is judged from the perspective of a
reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position.
6A WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CIVIL
330.06, at 250 (7th ed. Supp. 2022) (alterations in original).
For a discrimination claim, the WPI suggests, “An adverse employment action
is one that materially affects the terms, conditions or privileges of employment.”
WPI 330.01.02, at 234.
6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Verduzco v. King County
No. 103749-0
Verduzco proposed one instruction that recited both definitions from the WPI:
The term “adverse” means unfavorable or disadvantageous. An
employment action is adverse if it is harmful to the point that it would
dissuade a reasonable employee from making a complaint of
discrimination. Whether a particular action is adverse is judged from
the perspective of a reasonable person in the Mr. Verduzco’s position.
An adverse employment action is one that materially affects the terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment.
CP at 2542. The county opposed this instruction, arguing the jury “would be
confused by this [instruction] and apply it both to the discrimination and
retaliation cases.” 15 VRP at 1999. The court rejected this argument, concluding
Verduzco’s proposed instruction did not cause confusion or prevent the county
from arguing its case. The court accepted Verduzco’s proposed instruction
as instruction 8.