3
The parties assume the WPI accurately states the law, but pattern jury instructions
“are not authoritative primary sources of the law” and “do not receive advance approval from
any court.” 6 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CIVIL 0.10, at
2-3 (7th ed. 2019); State v. Carson, 184 Wn.2d 207, 224 n.11, 357 P.3d 1064 (2015).
In fact, the parties identify no authoritative source of Washington law defining “adverse
employment action” in this context. No provision of the WLAD defines an adverse employment
action; the term “adverse” does not appear in that statutory scheme at all. See RCW 49.60.210(1)
(“retaliation” means “to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against”). WPI 330.06
is modeled after a U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting federal antidiscrimination law.
WPI 330.06 cmt. (citing Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67-68,
126 S. Ct. 2405, 165 L. Ed. 2d 345 (2006)). Although our Court of Appeals has found White
persuasive, this court has never considered whether White’s interpretation of federal law has any
application to the WLAD. Compare Boyd v. State, 187 Wn. App. 1, 15, 349 P.3d 864 (2015), with
9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Verduzco v. King County
No. 103749-0
Jury instructions are reviewed de novo for errors of law; absent a legal error,
the specific language of instructions are matters of the trial court’s discretion.
Joyce v. Dep’t of Corr., 155 Wn.2d 306, 323, 119 P.3d 825 (2005);
Douglas v. Freeman, 117 Wn.2d 242, 256, 814 P.2d 1160 (1991). “Jury instructions
are sufficient when they allow counsel to argue their theory of the case,
are not misleading, and when read as a whole properly inform the trier of fact of the