178 Wn. App. 734, 747, 315 P.3d 610 (2013) (for a discrimination claim,
reassignment with loss of benefits may constitute an adverse action), with Tyner v.
Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 137 Wn. App. 545, 564-65, 154 P.3d 920 (2007) (for
a retaliation claim, reassignment with loss of benefits may constitute an adverse
action).
Indeed, some of the same conduct by the county in this case could be relevant
to both pattern definitions. Verduzco produced evidence of several actions that might
be sufficiently unfavorable or disadvantageous to dissuade a reasonable employee
from complaining: DNRP leadership wrote letters in his personnel file, gave him a
poor performance review, put him on leave, revoked his access to the building, and
suspended him without pay. Those actions individually or collectively might
dissuade a reasonable employee in Verduzco’s position from complaining, under the
WPI definition for a retaliatory adverse action. WPI 330.06; see Boyd v.
State, 187 Wn. App. 1, 14, 349 P.3d 864 (2015)
(finding substantial evidence of adverse actions in a retaliation claim when employer
issued a written reprimand, reported employee to the police, and suspended
employee without pay). Some of those actions may also satisfy the WPI definition
14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Verduzco v. King County
No. 103749-0
for a discriminatory adverse action. For example, revoking Verduzco’s access to the
building where he worked affected the terms or conditions of his employment.
WPI 330.01.02. Even if not all the actions affected the terms or conditions of
Verduzco’s employment, the county does not dispute that the unpaid suspension did,
given that Verduzco was not permitted to work and was not compensated.5