Strandquist v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, 3:23-cv-05071

Plaintiff Randall Strandquist sued the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) after being terminated for refusing COVID-19 vaccination, claiming failure to accommodate his religious beliefs under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination.
The case went to a five-day jury trial, which ended in mistrial due to a deadlocked jury.
At issue were whether DSHS had provided a reasonable accommodation (by offering a reassignment to a lower-paying role) and whether defense counsel's statements during closing argument improperly influenced the jury.
Plaintiff moved for sanctions against defense counsel, alleging their closing arguments misstated the law and confused the jury, resulting in the mistrial.
The Court previously gave curative instructions to address objections made about defense counsel's statements.
Both parties consented to the declaration of a mistrial after the jury remained deadlocked; a retrial is scheduled.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defense counsel's statements warranted sanctions	Defense counsel's closing statements misstated legal standards and confused the jury, causing mistrial	Counsel’s statements were brief, within scope of court’s ruling, and corrected with curative instructions	No evidence of bad faith or causal link; motion denied
Whether defense counsel acted in bad faith	Counsel intentionally skirted court rulings and sought to mislead the jury	No violation of court order; no evidence of intent to mislead; statements were permitted by the Court	No finding of bad faith; sanctions not appropriate
Whether statements directly caused jury deadlock	Plaintiff claims statements on essential functions and accommodations caused the jury to deadlock	Jury deadlocked on reasonableness of reassignment; no causal link to statements; presumption jury followed instructions	No causation shown; sanctions not warranted
Weight of juror post-trial statements/email	Post-trial juror email shows confusion caused by defense statements	Email not admissible; no sworn statement; at most, it speculates, not establishes causation	Email not accepted; even if considered, not enough

Am. Unites for Kids v. Rousseau, 985 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2021) (sets standards for inherent judicial sanctioning powers)
Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005) (sanctions for counsel's violation of pretrial order causing mistrial must be based on bad faith and causation)
Miller v. City of Los Angeles, 661 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011) (sanctions require showing that counsel's conduct caused jury deadlock and mistrial)
Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 1997) (bad faith necessary for inherent-power sanctions)
Evon v. L. Offs. of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) (distinguishes willful disobedience from bad faith in sanction analysis)