Verduzco v. King County, 103,749-0

Verduzco, a longtime King County employee, sued for WLAD discrimination and retaliation after a series of workplace conflicts and discipline. 1
After Verduzco complained about bias and perceived retaliation, the county investigated, issued letters of expectations, and warned him about further discipline. 2
The county later placed Verduzco on five months of paid administrative leave, suspended him for five unpaid days, and reassigned him to a less responsible position. 3
At trial, the court gave one jury instruction that combined the WPI definitions of adverse employment action for discrimination and retaliation. 4
The jury found no discrimination but found retaliation, and the county appealed the instruction as confusing or misleading. 5
The Court of Appeals reversed on the retaliation claim, but the Washington Supreme Court granted review. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the combined adverse-action instruction misleading? 7	Verduzco said combining both WPI definitions fit his mixed claims.	King County said the single instruction would confuse the jury.	Yes; the instruction was ambiguous and potentially misleading. 8
Did the misleading instruction require reversal? 9	Verduzco argued any error was harmless because the county was not prejudiced.	King County argued prejudice should be presumed.	No; King County failed to show prejudice, so no reversible error. 10

Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403 (Wash. 2018) (elements of a WLAD retaliation prima facie case 11)
Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 118 Wn.2d 46 (Wash. 1991) (elements of a WLAD retaliation prima facie case 12)
Joyce v. Dep't of Corr., 155 Wn.2d 306 (Wash. 2005) (jury instructions reviewed de novo for legal error 13)
Bodin v. City of Stanwood, 130 Wn.2d 726 (Wash. 1996) (instructions are sufficient if they allow argument, are not misleading, and correctly state the law as a whole 14)
Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 851 (Wash. 2012) (ambiguous instructions may be misleading; prejudice required for reversal 15)
Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wn.2d 237 (Wash. 2002) (prejudice is not presumed for merely misleading instructions 16)
Griffin v. W. RS, Inc., 143 Wn.2d 81 (Wash. 2001) (challenging party bears the burden to show prejudice 17)
Lake Hills Invs., LLC v. Rushforth Constr. Co., 198 Wn.2d 209 (Wash. 2021) (potentially misleading instruction can avoid reversal absent prejudice 18)
Boyd v. State, 187 Wn. App. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (examples of adverse actions in retaliation cases 19)