Washington State Supreme Court Issues En Banc Ruling Reversing Lower Court Decision
The Washington State Supreme Court issued an en banc opinion Thursday, overturning a lower appellate court's ruling that had previously vacated a retaliation verdict against King County in an employment discrimination lawsuit.
The unanimous opinion, drafted by Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis, determined that while a Pierce County Superior Court judge issued a jury instruction regarding the definition of an "adverse employment action" that could be considered misleading, any resulting error did not prejudice the county's defense.
Verduzco V King County Opinion (688KB ∙ PDF file)
Origins of the Litigation
The lawsuit originates from workplace conflicts involving a King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks employee who has been with the agency since 1992.
According to the Supreme Court opinion, the sequence of events leading to the retaliation claim commenced after the employee, who is Latino and utilizes hearing aids, was promoted to program manager in 2018. Following his promotion, he raised concerns regarding potential bias in a hiring policy.
The plaintiff alleged that his section manager responded by shouting and berating him, causing him to feel that his decisions were not being taken seriously due to his ethnicity.
The county’s human resources department conducted an investigation and concluded that no discrimination had been directed at the employee. However, HR did caution him regarding his approach, as well as the tone and volume of his emails. His supervisor subsequently issued a letter of expectations directing him to maintain professional conduct.
Tensions continued to escalate in the months that followed. After the plaintiff led a team meeting regarding the impact of a mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, a disagreement arose concerning a colleague attending his meetings uninvited. The plaintiff and his supervisor, Charles Wu, then attended a government race equity conference.
At the conference, Wu alleged that the plaintiff yelled and used profanity, explicitly naming several DNRP leaders as perpetuating racism. The plaintiff maintained that he did not yell and did not direct his comments at any specific individuals.
Following this incident, and another dispute where the plaintiff utilized his county email to accuse a parking attendant of racist behavior after receiving a ticket, he received a substandard performance review and another letter of expectations.
Subsequently, the county placed the plaintiff on paid administrative leave for five months, altering door codes to revoke his building access while investigations proceeded. He ultimately received a five-day unpaid suspension.
Upon his return, he was reassigned to a role with identical pay and classification but reduced responsibilities, an action he described as feeling like a demotion.
Concerns Regarding Jury Instruction
The plaintiff sued King County under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, bringing claims of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and disability, alongside a claim of retaliation.
Following a trial in Pierce County Superior Court before Judge Garold E. Johnson, a jury determined that the county did not discriminate against the plaintiff based on his protected statuses.
However, the jury determined that the county had unlawfully retaliated against him for raising his concerns.
King County appealed the verdict, focusing on "Instruction 8," a jury instruction proposed by the plaintiff and approved by Judge Johnson over the county’s objections.
The instruction combined two separate legal definitions from the Washington Pattern Jury Instructions for an "adverse employment action"—one meant for discrimination claims and one for retaliation claims.
Court of Appeals Division II Ruling
In an unpublished opinion issued in July 2024, the Court of Appeals Division II sided with the county, determining that the combined instruction was erroneous and ordering a new trial for the retaliation claim.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in a ruling issued Thursday.
Justice Montoya-Lewis, writing for the court, acknowledged that merging the two pattern definitions into one instruction without additional guidance created ambiguity that could potentially mislead the jury.
The court stressed, however, that an erroneous jury instruction warrants reversal only when it actually prejudices the party challenging it.
The justices concluded that by merging the definitions, the trial court effectively reduced the scope of actions available for the jury to consider.
This ambiguity arguably made it more difficult for Verduzco to prove his retaliation claim and easier for King County to defend itself.
“Rather than prejudicing the county, instruction 8 seems to have benefited it,” Montoya-Lewis wrote. “The instruction allowed the county to argue its theory of the case: that the unpaid suspension was the only adverse action it took and that doing so was justified, not retaliatory.”
Because King County failed to demonstrate that it was harmed by the misleading instruction, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision to grant a new trial based on that issue.
The high court remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals to resolve several additional issues raised in King County’s initial appeal that had been left undecided.