{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:washctapp-87793-3-2026-08-03","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:washctapp-87793-3-2026-08-03)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-17","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e7344b","proof":"sha256:12576af65dae431f63ff32514f86743bbccf0985478aa1efa9d71291145c06c6","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:washctapp-87793-3-2026-08-03","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434","para_435","para_436","para_437","para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441","para_442","para_443","para_444","para_445","para_446","para_447","para_448","para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457","para_458","para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466","para_467","para_468","para_469","para_470","para_471","para_472","para_473","para_474","para_475","para_476","para_477","para_478","para_479","para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483","para_484","para_485","para_486","para_487","para_488","para_489","para_490","para_491","para_492","para_493","para_494","para_495","para_496","para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500","para_501","para_502","para_503","para_504","para_505","para_506","para_507","para_508","para_509","para_510","para_511","para_512","para_513","para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517","para_518","para_519","para_520","para_521","para_522","para_523","para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527","para_528","para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534","para_535","para_536","para_537","para_538","para_539","para_540","para_541","para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545","para_546","para_547","para_548","para_549","para_550","para_551","para_552","para_553","para_554","para_555","para_556","para_557","para_558","para_559","para_560","para_561","para_562","para_563","para_564","para_565","para_566","para_567","para_568","para_569","para_570","para_571","para_572","para_573","para_574","para_575","para_576","para_577","para_578","para_579","para_580","para_581","para_582","para_583","para_584","para_585","para_586","para_587","para_588","para_589","para_590","para_591","para_592","para_593","para_594","para_595","para_596","para_597","para_598","para_599","para_600","para_601","para_602","para_603","para_604","para_605","para_606","para_607","para_608","para_609","para_610","para_611","para_612","para_613","para_614","para_615","para_616","para_617","para_618","para_619","para_620","para_621","para_622","para_623","para_624","para_625","para_626","para_627","para_628","para_629","para_630","para_631","para_632","para_633","para_634","para_635","para_636","para_637","para_638","para_639","para_640","para_641","para_642","para_643","para_644","para_645","para_646","para_647","para_648","para_649","para_650","para_651","para_652","para_653","para_654","para_655","para_656","para_657","para_658","para_659","para_660","para_661","para_662","para_663","para_664","para_665","para_666","para_667","para_668","para_669","para_670","para_671","para_672","para_673","para_674","para_675","para_676","para_677","para_678","para_679","para_680","para_681","para_682","para_683","para_684","para_685","para_686","para_687","para_688","para_689","para_690","para_691","para_692","para_693","para_694","para_695","para_696","para_697","para_698","para_699","para_700","para_701","para_702","para_703","para_704","para_705","para_706","para_707","para_708","para_709","para_710","para_711","para_712","para_713","para_714","para_715","para_716","para_717","para_718","para_719","para_720","para_721","para_722","para_723","para_724","para_725","para_726","para_727","para_728","para_729","para_730","para_731","para_732","para_733","para_734","para_735","para_736","para_737","para_738"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"NOTICE: SLIP OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"(not the court’s final written decision)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"written opinions that are originally filed by the court.","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"the court.","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"BENJAMIN DANIELSON,","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Respondent,","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"SEATTLE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, a","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"Washington nonprofit corporation","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"DIVISION ONE","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"ORDER GRANTING MOTION","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"TO PUBLISH","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Respondent, Benjamin Danielson, moved for publication of the opinion filed","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"on May 26, 2026 and appellant, Seattle Children’s Hospital, filed an answer to the","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"motion, opposing publication. A majority of the panel has determined that the motion","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"should be granted.","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Now, therefore, it is hereby","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"ORDERED that the motion to publish is granted.","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"FOR THE COURT:For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"BENJAMIN DANIELSON,","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"Respondent,","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"SEATTLE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL,","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"a Washington nonprofit corporation","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"DIVISION ONE","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"UNPUBLISHED OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"DÍAZ, J. — Dr. Benjamin Danielson sued Seattle Children’s Hospital (the","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"hospital) under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"49.60 RCW. Danielson claimed that, during the 21 years he was employed as the","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"medical director of the hospital’s Odessa Brown Children’s Clinic (OBCC), he was","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"subjected to a hostile work environment due to his race. He also claimed that he","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"experienced retaliation for opposing such racism and for calling attention to the","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"hospital’s “continuing refusal to take meaningful steps” to address the racism. The","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"jury awarded Danielson $21 million in damages. The hospital challenges both the","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"verdict and the amount of damages. We affirm.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/2","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"I. BACKGROUND","paragraph_id":"para_62","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"Danielson was employed from 1999 to 2020 as the medical director of the","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"OBCC, a satellite clinic of Seattle Children’s Hospital. OBCC largely served","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"African American patients. Danielson, an African American doctor, testified at trial","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"that other hospital employees doubted his intelligence and competence in his role","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"and that, for the full 21 years, he was not “welcome” in the professional space.","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"More overtly, other witnesses testified that the president of an affiliated","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"research institute, Jim Hendricks, referred to Danielson using an egregious racial","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"slur, and that the hospital did not address the slur even after it was reported to the","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"president of the Seattle Children’s Foundation and the hospital’s Chief Executive","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"Officer (CEO).","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"Danielson also testified about systemic racism that impacted both","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"employees and patients in the hospital. At a meeting of the board of directors in","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"2019, Danielson expressed concerns that the hospital was not prioritizing funding","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"that would serve the African American community. In 2020, Danielson was","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"investigated for a HIPAA violation, and then for other alleged issues with his","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"leadership. The investigation found that some allegations of misconduct were at","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"least partially substantiated. They planned to conduct a “360 review1 of [his]","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"leadership” and require Danielson to work with a leadership coach. Danielson","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"believed this was a retaliation for what he had said at the board meeting. He","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"resigned from his position at the hospital.","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"1 A “360 review” is a professional development tool intended to provide those in","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"leadership positions with feedback from multiple sources.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/3","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"After Danielson resigned, the hospital hired the law firm Covington and","paragraph_id":"para_87","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"Burling to complete an investigation and assessment of racial equity in the hospital.","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"The firm produced a report (the Covington report) which included both findings and","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"recommendations. Among other findings, the report stated that the hospital indeed","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"had not adequately investigated the allegation that Danielson was called by a racial","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"slur, and that the hospital work environment “excludes and undervalues BIPOC","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"workforce members.”","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"Danielson sued the hospital under WLAD, claiming both a hostile work","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"environment and retaliation. The hospital moved for summary judgment, which","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"the court denied. After a 16-day trial, the jury returned a ten-to-two verdict of $21","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"million for Danielson. The court then denied the hospital’s motions for judgment","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"as a matter of law, for a new trial, and for remittitur. The hospital timely appeals.","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"II. ANALYSIS","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"WLAD makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"employee because of race. RCW 49.60.180(3). RCW 49.60.030(2) allows an","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"employee subjected to discrimination to bring a civil action against their employer.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"WLAD is to be “construed liberally to effectuate its purpose of remedying","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"discrimination.” Gibson v. Costco Wholesale, Inc., 17 Wn. App. 2d 543, 556, 488","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"P.3d 869 (2021) (citing Clipse v. Commercial Driver Servs., Inc., 189 Wn. App.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"776, 790, 358 P.3d 464 (2015)).","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"A. Hostile Work Environment","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"The hospital makes various arguments in support of reversal of the jury","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"verdict finding a hostile work environment. First, it claims that the trial court erredFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/4","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"when it denied its motions for summary judgment, directed verdict, and judgment","paragraph_id":"para_112","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"as a matter of law. Second, the hospital claims that the court abused its discretion","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"when it admitted evidence of the racial slur and did not give a limiting instruction","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"regarding the findings of the Covington report. Third, the hospital argues that the","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"court gave an improper jury instruction. We hold that the court did not err in any","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"of these respects and that substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict. We","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"address each argument in turn.","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"1. Substantial Evidence","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"We first address the appropriate standard of review. The hospital argues","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"that this court should review de novo the denial of its motions for summary","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"judgment and judgment as a matter of law. We disagree and review the verdict","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"for substantial evidence.","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"“‘A summary judgment denial cannot be appealed following a trial if the","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"denial was based upon a determination that material facts are disputed and must","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"be resolved by the factfinder.’” Kaplan v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 115 Wn. App.","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"791, 799, 65 P.3d 16 (2003) (quoting Brothers v. Pub. Sch. Employees of Wash.,","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"88 Wn. App. 398, 409, 945 P.2d 208 (1997)). The losing party must then appeal","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"the sufficiency of the evidence. Winbun v. Moore, 143 Wn.2d 206, 213, 18 P.3d","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"576 (2001). “‘The record must contain a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"a rational, fair-minded person of the truth of the premise in question.’” Id. (quoting","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"Canron v. Fed. Ins. Co., 82 Wn. App. 480, 486, 918 P.2d 937 (1996)).","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"The reviewing court should overturn a jury verdict only if it is clearly","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"unsupported by substantial evidence. Gorman v. Pierce County, 176 Wn. App. 63,For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/5","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"87, 307 P.3d 795 (2013). Substantial evidence is “evidence that, if believed, would","paragraph_id":"para_137","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"support the verdict.” Id. The jury’s role is to consider the evidence and draw","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"inferences from it. Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 123 Wn.2d 93, 108, 864 P.2d","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"937 (1994). “We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the jury.” Gorman, 176","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"Wn. App. at 87. Since the jury found that Danielson had met his burden based on","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"the evidence, we should review for substantial evidence instead of de novo review.","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"Winbun, 143 Wn.2d at 213.","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"The hospital claims that Danielson’s hostile work environment claim fails","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"because Danielson “presented no evidence of racially-motivated workplace","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"harassment.” By way of summary only, we hold that, at a minimum, Danielson’s","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"testimony—that (a) hospital staff doubted his competence due to his race and (b)","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"the hospital did not adequately address a racial slur directly aimed at Danielson—","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"alone or together could persuade a rational juror that Danielson was subjected to","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"a hostile work environment. Winbun, 143 Wn.2d at 213. A juror could reasonably","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"conclude from the totality of those circumstances that Danielson experienced","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"harassment that affected the conditions of his employment. Blackburn v. Dep’t of","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"Social & Health Servs., 186 Wn.2d 250, 260, 375 P.3d 1076 (2016). Those two","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"pieces of evidence alone or together are substantial evidence to support the jury’s","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"verdict.","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"“An employee must demonstrate four elements for a hostile work","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"environment claim: that the harassment (1) was unwelcome, (2) was because of a","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"protected characteristic, (3) affected the terms or conditions of employment, and","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"(4) is imputable to the employer.” Id. at 260 (citing Glasgow v. Ga.-Pac. Corp.,For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/6","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"103 Wn.2d 401, 406-07, 693 P.2d 708 (1985)). The hospital claims that Danielson","paragraph_id":"para_162","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"failed to demonstrate harassment that affected the terms or conditions of","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"employment.","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"Whether the conduct affected the “terms and conditions of employment” is","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"generally a question of fact for the jury to determine by examining the “totality of","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"the circumstances.” Davis v. Fred’s Appliance, Inc., 171 Wn. App. 348, 362, 287","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"P.3d 51 (2012).","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"Danielson argued that he experienced a hostile work environment because","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"hospital staff questioned his competence due to his race. He testified that people","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"“didn’t think [he] was very smart . . . were amazed that [he]’d have the right answer,","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"or thought [he] was somehow cheating[.]” He testified that for 21 years, he was","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"“either considered too loud or too quiet” and that he felt he was “a person not","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"welcome in the space that [he] really felt was [his] professional home.” He","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"specifically stated that, when Jeff Sperring became CEO in 2015, he subjected","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"Danielson to discriminatory behavior until Danielson resigned.2","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"Over the hospital’s objection, discussed below, Danielson presented","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"evidence that in 2007, Dr. Hendricks called Danielson the N-word when talking to","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"another employee. The employee reported the incident to the president of the","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"Seattle Children’s Foundation, Doug Picha, and then to human resources. The","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"report was passed on to Tom Hansen, the CEO at the time. The employee also","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"2 The hospital did not challenge any of this testimony as being conclusory or vague","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"at trial or on appeal. The only testimony that the hospital argued is conclusory is","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"Danielson’s testimony of the racist treatment he experienced during his residency,","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"which we do not rely on as substantial evidence to support Danielson’s hostile","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"work environment claim.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/7","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"eventually told Danielson himself, who brought it up with the hospital medical","paragraph_id":"para_189","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"director, David Fisher. Fisher changed the subject and did not address the issue.","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"Dr. Hendricks continued to work at the hospital until the end of 2020.","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"The hospital argues that the three-year statute of limitations bars the racial","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"slur from forming the basis for a hostile work environment.3 But for a hostile work","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"environment claim, as long as one event “occurs within the filing period, the entire","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"time period of the hostile environment may be considered by a court for the","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"purposes of determining liability.” Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d 256, 264,","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"103 P.3d 729 (2004) (quoting Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101,","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"117, 122 S. Ct. 2061, 153 L. Ed. 2d 106 (2002)). A hostile work environment","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"“‘occurs over a series of days or perhaps years and, in direct contrast to discrete","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"acts, a single act of harassment may not be actionable on its own . . . Such claims","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"are based on the cumulative effect of individual acts.’” Id. (alteration in original)","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"(quoting Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115).","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"The hospital in response argues that Danielson did not show that the racial","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"slur was part of the same hostile work environment because he failed to present","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"“specific material facts showing similarly offensive language or conduct after July","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"17, 2020.” (Emphasis omitted.) They claim that, because Danielson admitted that","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"he had no knowledge that anyone else had “ever used racially discriminatory","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"language about him,” he lacked evidence that any hostile work environment","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"continued into 2020.","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"3 Although the hospital disputed Hendricks’s use of the slur at trial, it concedes that","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"following the jury’s verdict, the reviewing court presumes that Hendricks did in fact","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"use the slur to refer to Danielson.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/8","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"But “[t]he standard for linking discriminatory acts together in the hostile work","paragraph_id":"para_215","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"environment context is not high.” Loeffelholz v. Univ. of Wash., 175 Wn.2d 264,","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"276, 285 P.3d 854 (2012). Danielson need not present evidence, as the hospital","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"claimed at oral argument, of a specific slur was directed at him within the statute","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"of limitations. Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral argument, Danielson v. Seattle Children’s","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"Hospital, No. 87793-3-I (April 10, 2026), at 4 min., 45 sec. through 4 min., 59 sec.,","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"video recording by TVW, Washington State’s Public Affairs Network,","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"https://tvw.org/video/division-1-court-of-appeals-","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"2026041013/?eventID=2026041013.","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"In Antonius, our Supreme Court rejected the continuing violation doctrine,","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"which required a “substantial relationship between the timely and untimely","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"conduct[.]” 153 Wn.2d at 262. The court held instead that “some relationship” is","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"required between acts constituting the same hostile work environment. Id. at 271.","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"The jury was correctly instructed that they may “consider conduct occurring","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"prior to July 17, 2020, only if it is part of the same hostile work environment as at","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"least one act that took place after July 17, 2020.” See Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"(“Provided that an act contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period, the","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered by a court for the","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"purposes of determining liability.”). We hold that it was the jury’s role to determine","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"whether the racial slur in 2007 was part of a hostile work environment that","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"continued until 2020. See Loeffelholz, 175 Wn.2d at 276–77 (“a reasonable juror","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"could infer from these events that the ‘angry man’ comment was a natural","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"extension of the conduct that made up the preamendment oppressive workFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/9","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"environment.”). It is the reviewing court’s role to review such an inference for","paragraph_id":"para_240","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"substantial evidence. See Burnside, 123 Wn.2d at 107-08.","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"The hospital claimed at oral argument that “there is absolutely no","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"suggestion that Dr. Danielson was being considered any differently by any of his","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"colleagues within the statute of limitations.” Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral argument,","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"supra at 5 min., 40 sec. through 5 min., 59 sec. We disagree. Danielson testified","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"that “throughout” his employment, he was “both criticized for saying too much and","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"saying too little” due to his race. He testified that “[t]here was never a time, during","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"[his] entire twenty-one-year tenure at—at OBCC as medical director, where [he]","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"believed that a hostile work environment did not exist.” He also testified that he","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"heard the CEO “talk glowingly” about Dr. Hendricks even after Hendricks’ use of","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"the racial slur was reported and supposedly investigated. He testified that “starting","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"from 2015 forward, [he] believed that Dr. Jeff Sperring subjected [him] to","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"discriminatory behavior.”","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"Taken in the context of the hospital’s choice to ignore a racial slur, a","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"reasonable juror could infer that the later discrimination Danielson described was","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"a “natural extension of the conduct that made up the . . . oppressive work","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"environment” that existed prior to July 2020. See Loeffelholz, 175 Wn.2d at 276.","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"At oral argument, the hospital attempted to factually distinguish Loeffelholz.","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral argument, supra at 18 min., 40 sec. through 20 min., 15","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"sec. It points out that Loeffelholz was denied overtime and training opportunities,","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"a specific harm due to her sexual orientation. Loeffelholz, 175 Wn.2d at 268.","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"But a racial slur is also specific harm which, as the hospital conceded atFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/10","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"oral argument, could serve as a basis for liability due to a hostile work environment.","paragraph_id":"para_265","court_paragraph":10},{"text":"Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral argument, supra at 1 min., 35 sec. through 1 min., 47","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"sec. Our Supreme Court held in Loeffelholz that, even though the specific harm","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"occurred before the period of liability, it was part of the same hostile work","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"environment as her supervisor’s comment that he would become an “angry man.”","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"175 Wn.2d at 276–77. We similarly hold that even though the racial slur occurred","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"outside the statute of limitations, it occurred within the same hostile work","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"environment as the racial discrimination that Danielson experienced until he","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"resigned.","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"The hospital argues in a Statement of Additional Authorities that, if we were","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"to allow Danielson to rely on the racial slur as evidence of a hostile work","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"environment, we would “abolish” the statute of limitations for such claims. But our","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"Supreme Court dismissed that argument in Antonius, when it rejected the","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"substantial relationship requirement “[i[n light of the rule of liberal construction and","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"the purposes of the law prohibiting . . . discrimination.” 153 Wn.2d at 270.","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"The hospital next claims that Crownover v. Dep’t of Transp., 165 Wn. App.","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"131, 143, 265 P.3d 971 (2011), supports its argument that Danielson fails to show","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"“similarly offensive language or conduct” in order to present evidence of the racial","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"slur to the jury. We disagree. In Crownover, this court affirmed summary judgment","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"dismissal because the plaintiff had sought to use unrelated “retaliatory conduct” to","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"anchor in gender discrimination that occurred before the statute of limitations. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"Danielson does not rely on retaliatory conduct to establish a hostile work","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"environment. He instead presented evidence that the employee who calledFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/11","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"Danielson a racial slur continued to be praised by the CEO, and that the same","paragraph_id":"para_290","court_paragraph":11},{"text":"CEO also treated Danielson differently because of his race.","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"The hospital also claims that Crownover supports its argument that an act","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"too remote in time, such as the racial slur in this case, cannot serve as evidence","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"of a hostile work environment. But the court in Crownover held that “[a]cts that are","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"‘so discrete in time or circumstances’ . . . do not constitute a single hostile work","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"environment.” 165 Wn. App. at 144 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"Lucas v. Chi. Transit Auth., 367 F.3d 714, 727 (7th Cir. 2004)). But Danielson did","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"not present evidence of the racial slur is as a “discrete” event. Danielson presented","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"the racial slur as evidence of discrimination that lasted for his entire employment.","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"Examining the totality of the circumstances, the evidence in this case could","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"“persuade a rational, fair-minded person” that Danielson was subjected to a hostile","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"work environment. Winbun, 143 Wn.2d at 213 (internal quotation marks omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"Finally, the hospital cites Scaife v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 49 F.4th","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"1109, 1117 (7th Cir. 2022), in which the Seventh Circuit affirmed a dismissal of the","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"hostile work environment claim when a supervisor used a racial slur one time","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"outside the employee’s presence. Although the hospital claims that Scaife","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"supports their argument that “a single racial slur that the plaintiff did not personally","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"experience cannot create a hostile work environment,” the Seventh Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"acknowledged that a one-time use of an epithet could in some circumstances","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"warrant liability. 49 F.4th at 1116. Unlike Danielson, who testified that he","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"experienced discrimination and implicit bias from other employees of the hospital,","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"the employee in Scaife relied on the racial slur as the only evidence of a hostileFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/12","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"work environment based on race. Id. The case also states that “racial epithets do","paragraph_id":"para_315","court_paragraph":12},{"text":"not always have to be stated directly to a plaintiff to create an objectively hostile","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"work environment[.]” Id. We therefore decline to weigh the totality of the","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"circumstances, deferring instead to the jury’s determination.","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"In addition to his individual experience, Danielson also presented evidence","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"of systemic racism affecting both patients and employees of the hospital.","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"Supervisors gave employees of color “across the board” lower performance","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"reviews than their white peers. The OBCC building itself was not maintained as","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"well as the hospital’s main building. Unlike other clinics, OBCC had to rely on","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"donations for funding. The hospital used a “Code Purple” to call security","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"disproportionately on Black families. Hospital staff mistreated children with sickle","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"cell anemia, labeling them as “drug seeking.” Danielson testified that he","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"experienced “secondary trauma” from witnessing the racist treatment of “people","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"with [his] background.”","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"Danielson argues that the unaddressed systemic racism is additional","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"evidence of a hostile work environment. The hospital responds that evidence of","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"“[s]ystemic implicit bias”, “failure to fully eliminate institutional racial disparities”, or","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"“racially motivated” funding decisions, cannot be evidence of a hostile work","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"environment because they are not evidence of individual harm or harassment.","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"But, because Danielson provides substantial evidence of a hostile work","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"environment by describing how employees treated him individually, we may affirm","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"based on said evidence. Truck Ins. Exch. v. Vanport Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751,","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"766, 58 P.3d 276 (2002) (“We may affirm the trial court on any grounds establishedFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/13","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"by the pleadings and supported by the record.”). “‘Principles of judicial restraint","paragraph_id":"para_340","court_paragraph":13},{"text":"dictate that if resolution of an issue effectively disposes of a case, we should","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"resolve the case on that basis without reaching any other issues that might be","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"presented.’” Wash. State Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Gregoire, 162 Wn.2d 284, 307,","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"174 P.3d 1142 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hayden v. Mut.","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 141 Wn.2d 55, 68, 1 P.3d 1167 (2000)). Thus, we need not","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"and do not address whether evidence of racial disparities, implicit bias, and","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"systemic inequity that were not directed at Danielson individually are evidence of","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"a hostile work environment.","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"2. Evidentiary Rulings","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"The hospital assigns error to two of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. We","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Helmbreck v. McPhee, 15","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"Wn. App. 2d 41, 55, 476 P.3d 589 (2020).","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"The hospital argues that the court abused its discretion under ER 403 when","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"it admitted evidence of the racial slur that occurred before the three-year WLAD","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"statute of limitations.","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"Relevant evidence should be excluded if “its probative value is substantially","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"misleading the jury[.]” ER 403. We give great deference to the trial court’s","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"“balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect” in ER 403 rulings. Degroot","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"v. Berkley Constr., Inc., 83 Wn. App. 125, 128, 920 P.2d 619 (1996).","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"Since racism is the central issue to this case, the racial slur has high","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"probative value. The hospital argues that it is too remote in time to be relevant,For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/14","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"but as we addressed supra, as long as one event “occurs within the filing period,","paragraph_id":"para_365","court_paragraph":14},{"text":"the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered by a court for","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"the purposes of determining liability.” Antonius, 153 Wn.2d at 264 (quoting","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"Morgan, 536 U.S. at 117). Since we hold that the slur is a part of the same hostile","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"work environment that continued until Danielson resigned in 2020, the slur is","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"relevant to the hostile work environment claim.","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"It is true that racial slurs can be highly prejudicial, but, given the nature of","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"this case, the slur has high probative value and it is not an abuse of discretion to","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"find that it was not “unfair” prejudice to hold leadership to the words it chooses to","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"use. Thus, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it as","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"evidence of a hostile work environment. Degroot, 83 Wn. App. at 128.","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"The hospital next argues that the court erred when it declined to give a","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"limiting instruction regarding the jury’s consideration of the Covington report. We","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"again find no abuse of discretion.","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"The Covington report included a finding that the hospital did not “adequately","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"investigate or address” the allegation of Dr. Hendricks referring to Danielson with","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"a racial slur. The hospital moved to exclude the Covington report from evidence","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"under ER 407. The court denied the motion. The hospital then asked the court to","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"provide a limiting instruction clarifying report should not be considered as proof of","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"culpability. The court again denied the motion.","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"The hospital argues that the court should have instructed the jury that the","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"Covington report “could not be considered as evidence of culpable conduct.” It","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"claims that the Covington report was a remedial measure and therefore cannot beFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/15","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"15","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"used as evidence of liability under ER 407.","paragraph_id":"para_390","court_paragraph":15},{"text":"“When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"event.” ER 407. But ER 407 does not protect reports or investigations into what","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"went wrong.4 See Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. Bell Helicopters Textron,","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"805 F.2d 907, 918 (10th Cir. 1986)) (“It would strain the spirit of the remedial","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"measure prohibition in Rule 407 to extend its shield to evidence contained in post-","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"event tests or reports . . . such tests are conducted for the purpose of investigating","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"the occurrence to discover what might have gone wrong or right.”). The protected","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"remedial measures would be “actions taken to remedy any flaws or failures","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"indicated by the” report. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"The hospital argues that “[c]ourts diverge from Rocky Mountain when, as","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"here, post-event tests or studies serve both investigatory and remedial ends.”5","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"Although the Covington report did include both findings and recommendations,","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"4 See also CLIFFORD S. FISHMAN & ANNE TOOMEY MCKENNA, JONES ON EVIDENCE §","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"21:13 (7th ed. Nov. 2025) (stating that “most courts have interpreted Fed. R. Evid.","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"407 and state equivalents as excluding only evidence of the actual implementation","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"of a safety improvement, but not the reports or memoranda that lead up to the","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"improvements”; noting that “[a] careful reading of the rule . . . supports this","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"interpretation: To be excluded under the rule, the measure at issue must be one","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"that could have been taken before the event that gave rise to the claim. One cannot","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"investigate an accident before it occurs, so an investigation and report of the cause","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"of an accident, . . . cannot be a measure that is excluded from evidence under the","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"rule” (some alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"5 The Tenth Circuit recently declined to diverge from Rocky Mountain in Packard","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"v. City of Denver, No. 24-1367, 2026 WL 1077632 (10th Cir. Apr. 21, 2026), holding","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"that testimony of investigation into police response to protests was not barred by","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"ER 407 even though the investigation conclusions included “implied”","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"recommendations.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/16","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"16","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"there is no evidence that the finding regarding the inadequate investigation of the","paragraph_id":"para_422","court_paragraph":16},{"text":"racial slur served any remedial end. We hold that the findings and","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"recommendations in the Covington report are not evidence that the hospital has","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"actually taken remedial measures to address the hostile work environment that","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"Danielson describes. The court therefore did not abuse its discretion in declining","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"to provide a limiting instruction.","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"3. Jury Instructions","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"The hospital argues that the court erred when it replaced the word","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"“harassment” in the jury instructions with the words “hostile work environment”","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"because it removed Danielson’s burden to establish harassment. We disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"The parties initially agreed to jury instructions that exactly followed 6A","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"WASH. PRAC., WASH. PATTERN JURY INSTR. CIV. WPI 330.21 at 345 (7th ed. 2022)","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"(WPI). That night over email, Danielson asked to replace the word “harassment”","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"used in the WPI, with “hostile work environment,” which he argued would be less","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"confusing to the jury. The court agreed and revised the jury instructions over the","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"hospital’s objection.","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"“Jury instructions are generally sufficient if they are supported by the","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"evidence, allow each party to argue its theory of the case, and, when read as a","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"whole, properly inform the trier of fact of the applicable law.” Helmbreck, 15 Wn.","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"App. 2d at 57. We review de novo whether a jury instruction correctly states the","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"law. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 187 Wn.2d 743, 767, 389 P.3d 517 (2017).","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"A misleading instruction does not require reversal without proof the instruction was","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"prejudicial. Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wn.2d 237, 249, 44 P.3d 845 (2002). ItFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/17","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"17","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"is the party challenging an instruction that bears the burden of establishing","paragraph_id":"para_447","court_paragraph":17},{"text":"prejudice. Griffin v. W. RS, Inc., 143 Wn.2d 81, 91, 18 P.3d 558 (2001).","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"The relevant WPI on employment discrimination reads, “Harassment on the","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"basis of [(describe protected status)] is unlawful [employment] discrimination.”","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"WPI 330.21 at 345 (emphasis added). The pattern jury instruction on a hostile","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"work environment reads, in part, “To establish [his] [her] claim of harassment on","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"the basis of [(describe protected status)], (name of plaintiff) has the burden of","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"proving each of the following propositions: (1) That there was language or conduct","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"concerning [(describe the language or conduct related to protected status)]; . . . (3)","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"That this conduct or language was so offensive or pervasive that it altered the","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"conditions of (name of plaintiff)'s employment.” WPI 330.23 at 350 (emphasis","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"added).","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"Here, the language describing the elements that Danielson would need to","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"prove to meet his burden remained unchanged. The amended jury instructions","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"therefore correctly stated the law and placed the correct burden on Danielson,","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"even if they do not exactly match the WPI.","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"The hospital was able to argue its case that Danielson had failed to present","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"evidence “proving that . . . [racism] altered the conditions of his employment.” The","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"hospital does not show that the jury instructions prejudiced its ability to present its","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"case. Griffin, 143 Wn.2d at 91. Since the jury instructions informed the jury of the","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"applicable law and allowed each party to argue its case theory, we find no error in","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"the challenged jury instructions. Helmbreck, 15 Wn. App. 2d at 57.","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"The hospital further argues that the court “exacerbated its error” when itFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/18","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"18","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"declined to provide the hospital’s proposed clarifying instruction to the jury. We","paragraph_id":"para_472","court_paragraph":18},{"text":"disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"During deliberations, the jury asked, “What does the term conditions of","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"employment mean?”6 The hospital proposed offering the following clarifying","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"language: “Conduct affects the terms or conditions of employment i[f] it is","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"work environment. Whether conduct meets this test depends on the ‘totality of the","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"circumstances’, including the frequency and severity of harassing conduct,","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"whether it was physically threatening or humiliating or merely an offensive","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"utterance, and whether it unreasonably interfered with the employee’s work","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"performance.” This proposed clarification relied on the law as explained in","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"Glasgow, 103 Wn.2d at 406-07.","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"The court declined to offer the hospital’s proposed language, concerned","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"that highlighting certain things for the jury to consider would be the court improperly","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"commenting on the evidence. We hold that this ruling was not in error.","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"The hospital’s proposed instruction did not define “conditions of","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"employment,” as the jury had requested. The instruction instead offered examples","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"of evidence that the jury may consider. The court was correct to avoid instructing","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"the jury to place more weight on certain evidence. See In re Det. of R.W., 98 Wn.","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"App. 140, 144, 988 P.2d 1034 (1999) (holding that the trial court impermissibly","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"6 The hospital claims that this question is evidence that removing “harassment”","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"from the jury instructions confused the jury. We disagree. WPI 330.23 defines","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"harassment as conduct or language “so offensive or pervasive that it altered the","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"conditions of . . . employment.” It is circular reasoning to conclude that the defining","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"“conditions of employment” for the jury would require the word “harassment.”For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/19","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"19","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"comments on the evidence if it “instructs the jury as to the weight that should be","paragraph_id":"para_499","court_paragraph":19},{"text":"given certain evidence.”).","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"Thus, each of the various challenges the hospital brings to Danielson’s first","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"cause of action fail.","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"B. Retaliation","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"The hospital next claims that the court erred when it denied its motion for","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"judgment as a matter of law on Danielson’s claim of retaliation. We disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"“When reviewing an order granting or denying a motion for judgment as a","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"matter of law, this court applies the same standard as the trial court, determining","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"party, substantial evidence exists to support the verdict for the nonmoving party.”","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"Grove v. PeaceHealth St. Joseph Hosp., 182 Wn.2d 136, 143, 341 P.3d 261","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"(2014).","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"The hospital claims that “[n]o reasonable juror could find that Children’s","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"retaliated against Dr. Danielson by initiating an investigation six months after he","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"spoke out regarding the Odessa Brown project at the September 2019 Board","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"meeting.” We disagree and hold that the jury’s finding of retaliation is supported","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"by substantial evidence.","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"WLAD prohibits employers from “retaliating against employees who oppose","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"discriminatory practices.” Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403, 411, 430","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"P.3d 229 (2018) (citing RCW 49.60.210(1)). “To establish a prima facie case of","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"retaliation, an employee must show three things: (1) the employee took a statutorily","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"protected action, (2) the employee suffered an adverse employment action, andFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/20","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"20","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"(3) a causal link between the employee's protected activity and the adverse","paragraph_id":"para_524","court_paragraph":20},{"text":"employment action.” Id. at 411.","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"We hold that Danielson engaged in a protected action when he expressed","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"the belief that the hospital was not keeping funding commitments to the African","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"American community that the clinic served.7 A statutorily protected action occurs","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"if an employee opposes a practice that “he reasonably believed to be","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"discriminatory.” Alonso v. Qwest Commc'ns Co., LLC, 178 Wn. App. 734, 754,","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"315 P.3d 610 (2013). If the employee alleges racial discrimination, the practice or","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"action must include some reference to race. See id.","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"Danielson testified at trial that, at a board meeting in September 2019, he","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"expressed concern that the hospital was deprioritizing funding that would serve the","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"African American community. Danielson’s speaking up at the board meeting is a","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"protected activity because Danielson “reasonably believed” that the hospital’s","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"budgeting decisions were discriminatory based on the race of the patients. Alonso,","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"178 Wn. App. at 754.","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"The hospital claims that Danielson failed to prove that he suffered an","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"adverse employment action. We disagree. An adverse employment action is “[a]","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"change in employment conditions . . . a demotion or an adverse transfer, or a","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"hostile work environment.” Id. at 746 (citation omitted). Whether an employee","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"7 The hospital insists in their reply brief that they have not conceded that Danielson","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"engaged in a “protected activity.” But the hospital does not dispute that","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"Danielson’s expressions at the board meeting were a protected activity, either in","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"their motion for summary judgment, their motion for judgment as a matter of law,","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"or in their opening brief. Whether or not they concede the matter, it is not one in","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"serious dispute.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/21","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"21","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"suffered an adverse employment action is a question for the jury unless any","paragraph_id":"para_551","court_paragraph":21},{"text":"reasonable juror could reach only one conclusion. See id. at 747 (holding that a","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"transfer that caused an employee to lose a newer van and cell phone benefits","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"could allow a reasonable juror to conclude the employee had suffered an adverse","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"employment action).","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"In March 2020, the hospital initiated an investigation into Danielson’s","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"disclosure of the COVID status of some employees in violation of HIPAA. The","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"hospital then expanded the investigation into whether Danielson treated","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"employees differently based on race or gender.","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"In July 2020, the hospital informed Danielson that, based on the","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"investigation findings, they recommended that Danielson participate in a “360","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"review of [his] leadership” and work with an executive leadership coach. Danielson","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"testified that he knew from experience that the hospital used these tools to “push","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"[employees] out.” Danielson also testified that at the same time the hospital","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"recommended the coaching, they demoted him from a director role to an advisory","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"role. Danielson’s testimony of the expanded investigation and demotion could lead","paragraph_id":"para_566"},{"text":"a jury to conclude that Danielson suffered an adverse employment action.","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"In response, the hospital points to testimony that the 360 review and","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"leadership coach were not a punishment and that the letter stating that Danielson’s","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"role was advisory was a clarification instead of demotion. Such evidence was for","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"the jury to consider when they determine the factual question of whether Danielson","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"suffered an adverse employment action. See Alonso, 178 Wn. App. at 747. This","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"court should not substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Gorman, 176 Wn. App.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/22","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"22","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"at 87.","paragraph_id":"para_576","court_paragraph":22},{"text":"The hospital next claims that Danielson did not present evidence of","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"retaliatory animus or of a causal link between the protected activity and the alleged","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"adverse employment action. We disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"The causal link for a retaliation claim is usually supported by circumstantial","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"evidence, since an “‘employer is not apt to announce retaliation as his motive.’”","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"Cornwell, 192 Wn.2d at 411 (quoting Wilmot v. Kaiser Alum. & Chem., 118 Wn.2d","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"46, 69, 821 P.2d 18 (1991)).","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":"Danielson believed that his demotion was “retaliation for . . . speaking up at","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"a board meeting.” In response, the hospital points to evidence that Danielson had","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"been vocal about racial inequities in the healthcare system for several years before","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"the incident at the board meeting, all without any alleged retaliation. They also","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"point to Danielson’s testimony that he was encouraged by leadership to speak","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"candidly at the board meeting. Again, all of this evidence is for the jury, not this","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"court, to weigh. Cornwell, 192 Wn.2d at 412-13 (holding that “to avoid summary","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"judgment on causation, the employee must show only that a reasonable jury could","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"find that retaliation was a substantial factor in the adverse employment decision.”).","paragraph_id":"para_592"},{"text":"But the circumstantial evidence that Danielson was demoted after he accused the","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"hospital of racism in its budgeting decisions is substantial evidence supporting the","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"jury’s verdict. Gorman, 176 Wn. App. at 87.","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"To rebut the retaliation claim, the hospital points to Danielson’s testimony","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"that they were obligated to investigate allegations of Danielson’s misconduct. But","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"if the employer presents evidence of a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason forFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/23","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"23","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"the adverse employment action,” the plaintiff need only present evidence that","paragraph_id":"para_601","court_paragraph":23},{"text":"retaliation was a substantial factor. Scrivener v. Clark Coll., 181 Wn.2d 439, 446,","paragraph_id":"para_602"},{"text":"334 P.3d 541 (2014). Since an employer can be “motivated by multiple purposes,”","paragraph_id":"para_603"},{"text":"the employee does not need to disprove the “employer’s articulated reasons” to","paragraph_id":"para_604"},{"text":"meet the substantial factor burden. Id. at 447.","paragraph_id":"para_605"},{"text":"To show that retaliation could be a substantial factor, an employee may rely","paragraph_id":"para_606"},{"text":"on evidence that the employer knew of the employee’s protected action before the","paragraph_id":"para_607"},{"text":"employee was subjected to the adverse employment action. Cornwell, 192 Wn.2d","paragraph_id":"para_608"},{"text":"at 413. Danielson met his burden of production by testifying that within months of","paragraph_id":"para_609"},{"text":"the board meeting, the hospital deployed tools to “push [him] out.” This evidence","paragraph_id":"para_610"},{"text":"would allow the jury to infer that retaliation was a substantial factor, even if the","paragraph_id":"para_611"},{"text":"hospital also had legitimate reasons. Scrivener, 181 Wn.2d at 447. It was for the","paragraph_id":"para_612"},{"text":"jury to weigh whether to believe Danielson’s assertion.","paragraph_id":"para_613"},{"text":"Finally, the hospital relies on the unpublished case Smith v. City of Seattle,","paragraph_id":"para_614"},{"text":"No. 84351-6-I, slip op. at 19 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2023) (unpublished),","paragraph_id":"para_615"},{"text":"https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/843516.pdf, to argue that Danielson must","paragraph_id":"para_616"},{"text":"show that the hospital “departed from its policies and procedures” when it","paragraph_id":"para_617"},{"text":"investigated him. We hold that Danielson’s testimony that the “investigation into","paragraph_id":"para_618"},{"text":"whether or not [he] had disclosed personal information about Covid, was suddenly","paragraph_id":"para_619"},{"text":"including all these other assessments of [himself]” is substantial evidence that the","paragraph_id":"para_620"},{"text":"hospital’s investigation had departed from its standard procedure.","paragraph_id":"para_621"},{"text":"The jury’s role is to “determine the true reason for the action because the","paragraph_id":"para_622"},{"text":"record contains reasonable but competing inferences of both discrimination andFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_623"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/24","paragraph_id":"para_624"},{"text":"24","paragraph_id":"para_625"},{"text":"nondiscrimination.” Rice v. Offshore Sys., Inc., 167 Wn. App. 77, 90, 272 P.3d","paragraph_id":"para_626","court_paragraph":24},{"text":"865 (2012). It is not our role. Since a reasonable juror could infer that the","paragraph_id":"para_627"},{"text":"employer’s stated reasons were pretextual, the court was correct not to grant the","paragraph_id":"para_628"},{"text":"motion for a directed verdict on the retaliation claim. See id. The court did not err","paragraph_id":"para_629"},{"text":"in entering judgment based on the verdict.","paragraph_id":"para_630"},{"text":"C. Remittitur","paragraph_id":"para_631"},{"text":"Finally, the hospital argues that the court abused its discretion when it","paragraph_id":"para_632"},{"text":"refused to remit the $21 million verdict. We disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_633"},{"text":"The court’s statutory authority to remit a verdict is based in RCW 4.76.030,","paragraph_id":"para_634"},{"text":"which states that, if the court finds the jury’s damages award “to be so excessive","paragraph_id":"para_635"},{"text":"or inadequate as unmistakably to indicate that the amount thereof must have been","paragraph_id":"para_636"},{"text":"the result of passion or prejudice,” the court may “order a new trial or may enter an","paragraph_id":"para_637"},{"text":"order providing for a new trial unless the party adversely affected shall consent to","paragraph_id":"para_638"},{"text":"a reduction or increase of such verdict.”","paragraph_id":"para_639"},{"text":"“‘An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages made by a jury","paragraph_id":"para_640"},{"text":"unless it is outside the range of substantial evidence in the record, or shocks the","paragraph_id":"para_641"},{"text":"conscience of the court, or appears to have been arrived at as the result of passion","paragraph_id":"para_642"},{"text":"or prejudice.’” Bunch v. King County Dep't of Youth Servs., 155 Wn.2d 165, 175,","paragraph_id":"para_643"},{"text":"116 P.3d 381 (2005) (quoting Bingaman v. Grays Harbor Cmty. Hosp., 103 Wn.2d","paragraph_id":"para_644"},{"text":"831, 835, 699 P.2d 1230 (1985)). “A damages award ‘shocks the conscience’ if it","paragraph_id":"para_645"},{"text":"is ‘flagrantly outrageous and extravagant.’” Pendergrast v. Matichuk, 189 Wn.","paragraph_id":"para_646"},{"text":"App. 854, 868, 355 P.3d 1210 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting","paragraph_id":"para_647"},{"text":"Bunch, 155 Wn.2d at 179).For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_648"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/25","paragraph_id":"para_649"},{"text":"25","paragraph_id":"para_650"},{"text":"The trial court, having witnessed the testimony of emotional distress, is in","paragraph_id":"para_651","court_paragraph":25},{"text":"the best position to determine whether the testimony supports the amount of","paragraph_id":"para_652"},{"text":"damages. Hill v. GTE Directories Sales Corp., 71 Wn. App. 132, 140, 856 P.2d","paragraph_id":"para_653"},{"text":"746 (1993). We therefore review the trial court’s refusal of remittitur for abuse of","paragraph_id":"para_654"},{"text":"discretion. Bunch, 155 Wn.2d at 176.","paragraph_id":"para_655"},{"text":"In our republic, the jury is essential in determining the value of noneconomic","paragraph_id":"para_656"},{"text":"damages, which is a question of fact. Id. at 179. There is a strong presumption in","paragraph_id":"para_657"},{"text":"favor of a jury’s award. Id. at 173. “[E]motionally laden testimony . . . regarding","paragraph_id":"para_658"},{"text":"the emotional distress and mental anguish” is evidence supporting a large verdict","paragraph_id":"para_659"},{"text":"of noneconomic damages. Wuth v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 189 Wn. App. 660, 704,","paragraph_id":"para_660"},{"text":"359 P.3d 841 (2015). A substantial length of time experiencing discrimination is","paragraph_id":"para_661"},{"text":"also evidence in support of a large damages award. Bunch, 155 Wn.2d at 180","paragraph_id":"para_662"},{"text":"(holding that a six-year period of employment discrimination is substantial and","paragraph_id":"para_663"},{"text":"supports a large award of noneconomic damages).","paragraph_id":"para_664"},{"text":"Danielson sought only noneconomic damages for “emotional distress,","paragraph_id":"para_665"},{"text":"anxiety, humiliation, and embarrassment[.]” At closing argument, he suggested “a","paragraph_id":"para_666"},{"text":"range of $15 to $20 million” for the damage that he experienced “over 21 years.”","paragraph_id":"para_667"},{"text":"Substantial evidence supports the jury’s award. Danielson worked for 21","paragraph_id":"para_668"},{"text":"years in what the jury determined to be a hostile work environment. He testified at","paragraph_id":"para_669"},{"text":"trial that the hospital had caused “great mental strain, changes in the way [his]","paragraph_id":"para_670"},{"text":"heart functions, and changes in the way [he] eat[s] and sleep[s].” He also testified","paragraph_id":"para_671"},{"text":"that he had stopped practicing medicine because the “personal wound” affected","paragraph_id":"para_672"},{"text":"his “sense of [his] capacity” to work with the patients. This testimony is substantialFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_673"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/26","paragraph_id":"para_674"},{"text":"26","paragraph_id":"para_675"},{"text":"evidence supporting the verdict. The amount is not flagrantly outrageous","paragraph_id":"para_676","court_paragraph":26},{"text":"considering the length of time in the hostile work environment. See id.","paragraph_id":"para_677"},{"text":"For the court to disturb the jury award despite substantial evidence, the","paragraph_id":"para_678"},{"text":"record must “unmistakably indicate[] that the verdict is not actually based on that","paragraph_id":"para_679"},{"text":"substantial evidence but instead on some improper consideration that gives rise to","paragraph_id":"para_680"},{"text":"passion or prejudice, or that otherwise shocks the court's conscience.” Coogan v.","paragraph_id":"para_681"},{"text":"Borg-Warner Morse Tec Inc., 197 Wn.2d 790, 814, 490 P.3d 200 (2021).","paragraph_id":"para_682"},{"text":"The hospital claims that the verdict was based on the alleged errors","paragraph_id":"para_683"},{"text":"addressed supra. Since we find no error on review, no alleged error was the","paragraph_id":"para_684"},{"text":"improper basis for passion or prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_685"},{"text":"The hospital also argues that Danielson incited passion and prejudice when","paragraph_id":"para_686"},{"text":"the court improperly allowed him to “tell the jury that [the hospital] should be ‘held","paragraph_id":"para_687"},{"text":"to account’ for systemic racism[.]” We read no improper comment in the record.","paragraph_id":"para_688"},{"text":"The hospital argues that in Danielson’s closing argument, he invited the jury","paragraph_id":"para_689"},{"text":"to make “a greater impact” on systemic racism, as opposed to holding the hospital","paragraph_id":"para_690"},{"text":"accountable for the harassment that Danielson personally experienced. But in","paragraph_id":"para_691"},{"text":"context, Danielson invited the jury to hold “Seattle Children’s Hospital, as an","paragraph_id":"para_692"},{"text":"institution, accountable for this harm and for their inaction and their action that has","paragraph_id":"para_693"},{"text":"profoundly harmed Ben Danielson.” (Emphasis added.)","paragraph_id":"para_694"},{"text":"The hospital makes a similar argument about a comment in Danielson’s","paragraph_id":"para_695"},{"text":"closing rebuttal, in which he stated that if the jury did not hold the hospital","paragraph_id":"para_696"},{"text":"accountable, “racism will continue to be alive and well.” Again, in context, the","paragraph_id":"para_697"},{"text":"comment is not improper. Danielson argued:For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_698"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/27","paragraph_id":"para_699"},{"text":"27","paragraph_id":"para_700"},{"text":"“[Y]ou’re the ones who will decide if Seattle Children[’]s is going to","paragraph_id":"para_701","court_paragraph":27},{"text":"be held to account. Money does not fix racism . . . But if you let those","paragraph_id":"para_702"},{"text":"facts cause you to bring an award back that is insufficient to account","paragraph_id":"para_703"},{"text":"for the damage that Dr. Danielson has dealt with over 21 years at","paragraph_id":"para_704"},{"text":"OBCC, 21 years—if your verdict does not bring accountability for","paragraph_id":"para_705"},{"text":"what Seattle Children[’]s did, what they knew, what they should have","paragraph_id":"para_706"},{"text":"known, what they did, and what they failed to do in that time period,","paragraph_id":"para_707"},{"text":"then I guarantee you racism will continue to be alive and well.”8","paragraph_id":"para_708"},{"text":"(Emphasis added.) Both of the allegedly improper comments, when reviewed in","paragraph_id":"para_709"},{"text":"context, are arguments inviting the jury to return a verdict that compensates","paragraph_id":"para_710"},{"text":"Danielson for the harm that he experienced.","paragraph_id":"para_711"},{"text":"Finally, even if the language at closing argument could have caused some","paragraph_id":"para_712"},{"text":"passion or prejudice in the jury to hold the hospital accountable for all racism, the","paragraph_id":"para_713"},{"text":"jury was instructed that the value of damages should “reasonably and fairly","paragraph_id":"para_714"},{"text":"compensate [Danielson].” We presume the jury followed the court’s instructions.","paragraph_id":"para_715"},{"text":"State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 766, 278 P.3d 653 (2012).","paragraph_id":"para_716"},{"text":"This court can therefore not hold upon review that the jury’s award was","paragraph_id":"para_717"},{"text":"“unmistakably” based on passion or prejudice. Coogan, 197 Wn.2d at 814. We","paragraph_id":"para_718"},{"text":"find no abuse of discretion.9","paragraph_id":"para_719"},{"text":"8 Although the hospital objected to the first comment in closing argument, it did not","paragraph_id":"para_720"},{"text":"object to this comment in the rebuttal, or request a curative instruction. A party","paragraph_id":"para_721"},{"text":"waives review of an allegedly improper comment if they do not timely object.","paragraph_id":"para_722"},{"text":"Collins v. Clark County Fire Dist. No. 5, 155 Wn. App. 48, 97, 231 P.3d 1211","paragraph_id":"para_723"},{"text":"(2010). This is especially true when, as in this case, “the trial court instructs the","paragraph_id":"para_724"},{"text":"jury that arguments are not evidence and that argument not supported by evidence","paragraph_id":"para_725"},{"text":"is to be disregarded.” Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.,","paragraph_id":"para_726"},{"text":"122 Wn.2d 299, 334, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993). The hospital therefore may have also","paragraph_id":"para_727"},{"text":"waived the argument that Danielson’s comments during rebuttal improperly","paragraph_id":"para_728"},{"text":"sparked passion or prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_729"},{"text":"9 The court granted Danielson’s request for attorney fees under RCW 49.60.030","paragraph_id":"para_730"},{"text":"in the amount of $2,068,582.49. The hospital challenges the award of fees on the","paragraph_id":"para_731"},{"text":"grounds that the verdict itself must be reversed. Since we affirm the judgment, we","paragraph_id":"para_732"},{"text":"also affirm the attorney fee award.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_733"},{"text":"No. 87793-3-I/28","paragraph_id":"para_734"},{"text":"28","paragraph_id":"para_735"},{"text":"III. CONCLUSION","paragraph_id":"para_736","court_paragraph":28},{"text":"We affirm the trial court’s order.","paragraph_id":"para_737"},{"text":"WE CONCUR:For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_738"}],"word_count":8036,"cites":["536 U.S. 101","367 F.3d 714","49 F.4th\n1109","805 F.2d 907"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"d9df4287189b5a661f9b311138834b510ade95e796b7b7c12cb47ce77f690c0d","source_url":"https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/877933 Order and Opinion.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-17T19:42:32.167+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/washctapp-87793-3-2026-08-03","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:washctapp-87793-3-2026-08-03","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:washctapp-87793-3-2026-08-03","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:washctapp-87793-3-2026-08-03","verification":{"stored_sha256":"d9df4287189b5a661f9b311138834b510ade95e796b7b7c12cb47ce77f690c0d","recomputed_sha256":"d9df4287189b5a661f9b311138834b510ade95e796b7b7c12cb47ce77f690c0d","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-17T20:54:51.851Z"}},"hash":"sha256:12576af65dae431f63ff32514f86743bbccf0985478aa1efa9d71291145c06c6","version":"legal-2026-10-17","expires":"2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33","content_hash":"sha256:12576af65dae431f63ff32514f86743bbccf0985478aa1efa9d71291145c06c6","revalidate_after":"2026-10-17T21:54:52.033Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:washctapp-87793-3-2026-08-03","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:washctapp-87793-3-2026-08-03"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:washctapp-87793-3-2026-08-03"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:washctapp-87793-3-2026-08-03"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/washctapp-87793-3-2026-08-03","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-184403d3f6f77f0211d665f776a65d7d","response_hash":"sha256:12576af65dae431f63ff32514f86743bbccf0985478aa1efa9d71291145c06c6"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T14:26:03.366Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Awashctapp-87793-3-2026-08-03&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":31648}}