hostile work environment claim in Washington

2000WorldCom appeals, contending that the trial court erred in imputing liability for Green’s conduct to the employer because (1) the quid pro quo harassment claim was barred by the statute of limitations; (2) Green was not a “manager” within the meaning of Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401 , 693 P.2d 708 (1985) so that liability could not be automatically imputed for the hostile work environment claim; (3) Henningsen failed to mitigate her damages, so that full back pay should not have been awarded; and (4) the trial court’s use of a 1.25 multiplier on the hours expended to enhance

2000WorldCom appeals, contending that the trial court erred in imputing liability for Green’s conduct to the employer because (1) the quid pro quo harassment claim was barred by the statute of limitations; (2) Green was not a “manager” within the meaning of Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401 , 693 P.2d 708 (1985) so that liability could not be automatically imputed for the hostile work environment claim; (3) Henningsen failed to mitigate her damages, so that full back pay should not have been awarded; and (4) the trial court’s use of a 1.25 multiplier on the hours expended to enhance

2026The hospital argues that the three-year statute of limitations bars the racial slur from forming the basis for a hostile work environment. 3 But for a hostile work environment claim, as long as one event “occurs within the filing period, the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered by a court for the purposes of determining liability.” Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d 256, 264 , 103 P.3d 729 (2004) (quoting Nat’l R.R.

2008However, the Court concluded that hostile work environment claims "are different in kind from discrete acts" and "[t]heir very nature involves repeated conduct." Antonius v. King County, 153 Wash.2d 256, 264 , 103 P.3d 729 (2004) (citing Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 ). ¶ 53 In sum, a plaintiff with a hostile work environment claim may not use that claim to seek damages for a discrete discriminatory act that is time barred but, if otherwise admissible, may use that discrete act as background information if it tends to support a hostile work environment claim.

2016To establish a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show that he or she received unwelcome harassment, the harassment was because of membership in a protected class, the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, and the harassment can be imputed to the employer.12 Harassment is conduct an employee finds offensive.13 Discriminatory comments, mockery, or insults towards the employee are harassment.14 10 RCW 49.60.180. 11 RCW 49.60.210(1). 12 Loeffelholz v. Univ. of Wash., 175 Wn.2d 264, 275 , 285 P.3d 854 (2012). 13 Glasgow v. Georgia-Pac.

2016To establish a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show that he or she received unwelcome harassment, the harassment was because of membership in a protected class, the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, and the harassment can be imputed to the employer.12 Harassment is conduct an employee finds offensive.13 Discriminatory comments, mockery, or insults towards the employee are harassment.14 10 RCW 49.60.180. 11 RCW 49.60.210(1). 12 Loeffelholz v. Univ. of Wash., 175 Wn.2d 264, 275 , 285 P.3d 854 (2012). 13 Glasgow v. Georgia-Pac.

2017In order to withstand summary judgment on a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that "(1) the harassment was unwelcome,(2) the harassment was because of[a protected classification],(3) the harassment affected the terms or conditions of employment, and (4)the harassment is imputed to the employer." Boeing Co., 105 Wn.

2017However, a grant of summary judgment dismissing a hostile work environment claim is appropriate when the plaintiff's submissions demonstrate nothing more than "[c]asual, isolated or trivial manifestations of a discriminatory environment" because such manifestations do not affect the conditions of employment "to a sufficiently significant degree to violate the law." -19- No. 74367-8-1/20 Boeing Co., 105 Wn.

2016App. 591, 595-96 , 769 P.2d 318 (1989) (extending the hostile work environment standard in Glasgow to race-based hostile work environment claims).

2016App. 591, 595-96 , 769 P.2d 318 (1989) (extending the hostile work environment standard in Glasgow to race-based hostile work environment claims).

2013To establish the second element of a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff need only produce " evidence that supports a reasonable inference that [ his protected class status] was the motivating factor for the harassing conduct." Doe v. Dep' t of Transp., 85 Wn.

2013Therefore, we next analyze whether Alonso’s protected status motivated the harassment. ¶29 To establish the second element of a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff need only produce “evidence that supports a reasonable inference that his [protected class status] was the motivating factor for the harassing conduct.” John Doe v. Dep’t of Transp., 85 Wn.

2005To establish this claim, “the employee must prove (1) the harassment was unwelcome, (2). . . was because of sex, (3). . . affected the terms or conditions of employment, and (4). . . is imputed to the employer.” DeWater, 130 Wn.2d at 135 (citing Glasgow v. Ga.-Pac.

2000DeWater, 130 Wn.2d at 135 .

2019Alonso v. Qwest Commc’ns Co., 178 Wn.

2016Corp.. 103 Wn.2d 401, 406 , 693 P.2d 708 (1985). 14 See, e^, Loeffelholz. 175 Wn.2d at 275 -76: Antonius v. King County. 153 Wn.2d 256, 259-60 , 103 P.3d 729 (2004); Alonso v. Qwest Commc'ns Co.. LLC, 178 Wn.

2017To establish a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show that "'(1) the harassment was unwelcome,(2) the harassment was because [plaintiff was a member of a protected class],(3) the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, and (4) the harassment is imputable to the employer."8 Washington courts permit hostile work environment claims "based on acts that individually may not be actionable but together constitute part of a unified whole comprising a hostile work environment."9 For example, an employee satisfies the third element of a hostile work environment claim i

2016For example, an employee may satisfy an element of a hostile work environment claim if, considering the totality of the circumstances, the 7 Estevez v. Faculty Club of Univ. of Wash., 129 Wn.

2009Auth., 148 N.J. 524, 554-55 , 691 A.2d 321 (1997) (holding that an investigation into a hostile work environment claim was likely not work product because it was conducted during the ordinary course of business, not in anticipation of litigation). ¶8 At the time of the Stephson investigation, no one had threatened litigation related to the hostile work environment and none was reasonably anticipated.

2009Auth., 148 N.J. 524, 554-55 , 691 A.2d 321 (1997) (holding that an investigation into a hostile work environment claim was likely not work product because it was conducted during the ordinary course of business, not in anticipation of litigation). ¶8 At the time of the Stephson investigation, no one had threatened litigation related to the hostile work environment and none was reasonably anticipated.

2008Clarke, 133 Wash.App. at 787 , 138 P.3d 144 .

2008Clarke, 133 Wn.

2005Id. at 619 . f 39 Ms. Campbell contends she was reverted to her position as a custodian because she filed a hostile work environment claim.

2005Id. at 619 , 60 P.3d 106 . ¶ 39 Ms. Campbell contends she was reverted to her position as a custodian because she filed a hostile work environment claim.

2000After reaching a similar conclusion, Division Three of this court recently applied the Faragher analysis to a hostile work environment claim, in Sangster v. Albertson’s, Inc., 99 Wn.

2000After reaching a similar conclusion, Division Three of this court recently applied the Faragher analysis to a hostile work environment claim, in Sangster v. Albertson's, Inc., 99 Wash. App. 156 , 991 P.2d 674 (2000). [3] WorldCom asks us to adopt the Faragher analysis in this case.

1998In Payne v. Children's Home Soc. of Wash., Inc., 77 Wash.App. 507 , 892 P.2d 1102 (1995), Payne testified that her manager treated women more harshly than men, although he had verbally abused employees of both sexes.

1998In Payne v. Children's Home Soc. of Wash., Inc., 77 Wash.App. 507 , 892 P.2d 1102 (1995), Payne testified that her manager treated women more harshly than men, although he had verbally abused employees of both sexes.

1998Pa.) (“Hostile behavior that does not bespeak an unlawful motive cannot support a hostile work environment claim.”), aff’d without opinion, 856 F.2d 184 (3d Cir. 1988).

1998Miller v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 679 F.Supp. 495, 502 (W.D.Pa.1988) ("Hostile behavior that does not bespeak an unlawful motive cannot support a hostile work environment claim."), aff'd. without opinion, 856 F.2d 184 (3d Cir. 1988).

2026“An employee must demonstrate four elements for a hostile work environment claim: that the harassment (1) was unwelcome, (2) was because of a protected characteristic, (3) affected the terms or conditions of employment, and (4) is imputable to the employer.” Id. at 260 (citing Glasgow v. Ga.-Pac.

2024Powell, 37 F. Supp. 2d at 1013 .

2024In Capital Cities, an actor brought a hostile work environment claim against a casting director who raped the actor in his home during the period of time in which the actor and the casting director had been engaging in activities that were intended to lead to an employment contract. 50 Cal. App. 4th at 1042-43 .

2024Id. at 1047-48 .

2024In Blakey, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed whether an employer could be liable on a hostile work environment claim based on online harassment by coworkers within an electronic forum available on a work-related electronic bulletin board. 164 N.J. at 48-54 .

2024The court determined that even though the electronic forum was not part of the physical workplace setting, harassment within the forum could support a hostile work environment claim if the electronic forum was “closely related to the workplace environment and beneficial to [the employer].” Id. at 26 Amici also cite Ratliff v. United States Postmaster General, No. 2:06-cv-00115, 2008 WL 11450458 (S.D.

2019E.g., Beckford, 605 F.3d at 957-58 .

2019Greater Harbor 2000 v. City of Seattle, 132 Wn.2d 267, 279 , 937 P.2d 1082 (1997). 6 No. 78362-9-1/7 employee.

2019Greater Harbor 2000 v. City of Seattle, 132 Wn.2d 267, 279 , 937 P.2d 1082 (1997). 6 No. 78362-9-1/7 employee.

2018The 15 Id. at 446 . 16 Antoniusv.

2016App. 774, 790 , 120 P.3d 579 (2005). 8 Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d 256, 266 , 103 P.3d 729 (2004). 9 Loeffelholz v. Univ. of Wash., 175 Wn.2d 264, 275 , 285 P.3d 854 (2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Antonius, 153 Wn.2d at 261 ). 10 Antonius, 153 Wn.2d at 268 . 11 \± at 264 (alteration in original) (quoting Nat'l R.R.