Bengtsson v. Sunnyworld Int'l, Inc.

• Decision Date: 10 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 79016-1-I,79016-1-I
• Citation: 469 P.3d 339,14 Wash.App.2d 91
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: Trina BENGTSSON, Respondent, v. SUNNYWORLD INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Washington corporation, Xiangling Kong, an individual, and Bingtuan Yin, an individual, Appellants.

14 Wash.App.2d 91

469 P.3d 339

Trina BENGTSSON, Respondent,

v.SUNNYWORLD INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Washington corporation, Xiangling Kong, an individual, and Bingtuan Yin, an individual, Appellants.

No. 79016-1-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.

FILED August 10, 2020

Malaika Marie Eaton, Theresa Demonte, McNaul Ebel Nawrot & Helgren PLLC, 600 University St. Ste. 2700, Seattle, WA, 98101-3143, Glyn Lewis, Glyn E. Lewis, 2211 Elliott Ave. Ste. 200, Seattle, WA, 98121-3622, for Appellants.

Katherine C. Chamberlain, Joseph Robert Shaeffer, MacDonald Hoague & Bayless, 705 2nd Ave. Ste. 1500, Seattle, WA, 98104-1745, for Respondent.

PUBLISHED OPINION

Dwyer, J. ¶ 1 This is an employment discrimination case. Trina Bengtsson filed suit against Sunnyworld International, Inc., which owns and operates a private preschool, and two of its owners, Xiangling Kong and Bingtuan Yin (collectively Sunnyworld), alleging that she was terminated from her position as the preschool's director due to pregnancy discrimination. The matter proceeded to trial, where the jury found that Sunnyworld had indeed discriminated against Bengtsson due to her pregnancy. Sunnyworld now appeals, contending that several evidentiary errors resulted in prejudice requiring a new trial. In response, Bengtsson asserts that none of the assigned errors are meritorious and requests an award of attorney fees on appeal. Because Sunnyworld's contentions are meritless, and because RCW 49.60.030(2) authorizes an award of attorney fees in discrimination cases such as this, we affirm the judgment and grant Bengtsson's request for an award of attorney fees on appeal.

I

¶ 2 In August 2015, Yin and Kong hired Bengtsson to work as the director of Sunnyworld's preschool. Over the course of the following year, Bengtsson received positive feedback and two raises as a result of her work performance at the preschool. This abruptly changed in January 2017 when Bengtsson informed Kong that she was pregnant and intended to take maternity leave starting in June 2017. On February 3, 2017, less than one month after Kong learned that Bengtsson was pregnant, Sunnyworld terminated Bengtsson's employment.

¶ 3 Sunnyworld communicated the firing to Bengtsson through its agent, Mei Lei.¹ Bengtsson testified at trial that Lei informed her that Sunnyworld's owners wanted her to "take unemployment and rest before the baby," and that "people in China rest before the baby." Lei admitted during her testimony to suggesting that Bengtsson check whether she could obtain unemployment and that she told Bengtsson that women in China usually rest before giving birth, but insisted that she only discussed these topics during idle chit-chat after informing Bengtsson of her termination.

¶ 4 Bengtsson protested her termination, explaining to Lei that in America pregnant women work through their pregnancies and that she personally did not need to rest. At this point, Lei informed Bengtsson that Sunnyworld's owners were not happy with her work. When pressed for specifics on what part of her performance was not satisfactory, Lei made a general reference to a concern about receipts, but did not elaborate as to any specifics.

¶ 5 Bengtsson later sought clarification as to why she was fired in a video call with Kong, during which Kong informed her that Sunnyworld's board—which Bengtsson did not know existed prior to that conversation—had decided to terminate her employment due to financial concerns with enrollment numbers. Receipts were not mentioned as an explanation for her termination during this call. However, Kong also said that she hoped Bengtsson could come back to work at Sunnyworld after the baby arrived and Bengtsson had taken about a year off. In a follow-up message to Bengtsson, Lei confirmed that Kong hoped Bengtsson would come back to Sunnyworld in the future and offered to be a reference for her in the meantime.

¶ 6 Bengtsson subsequently filed this lawsuit against Sunnyworld International, Inc. and Yin and Kong, alleging that they had violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, by terminating her employment due to her pregnancy. In its answer to this lawsuit, Sunnyworld asserted an affirmative defense of unclean hands, which it later clarified during discovery was based on an accusation that Bengtsson had embezzled funds from the company for personal expenses. However, when pressed during discovery to provide the factual basis for this accusation, Sunnyworld admitted that it had no factual basis to believe that Bengtsson had embezzled funds and did not actually believe that she had done so. As a result, this affirmative defense was later dismissed on summary judgment.

¶ 7 During discovery, Sunnyworld asserted that its board was comprised of three owners, Kong, Yin, and a 51 percent majority shareholder Guagzhi Wu. Because Bengtsson had never met or even heard of Wu before this lawsuit, Bengtsson's counsel attempted to schedule a deposition of Wu on multiple occasions. Sunnyworld never presented him for deposition. Sunnyworld's counsel informed Bengtsson's counsel that Wu was suffering from the mental illness of severe depression, was living in China, and was too ill to travel or be deposed. However, Sunnyworld never substantiated these assertions by providing evidence, such as a sworn declaration or affidavit from Wu or a care provider, detailing Wu's asserted malady, prognosis, or restrictions. It is undisputed that Wu was never seen or questioned by Bengtsson or her attorneys prior to, during, or after the end of the discovery period.

¶ 8 Despite failing to produce Wu for deposition, Sunnyworld planned to offer, through Yin and Kong, testimony at trial regarding out of court statements Wu allegedly made regarding the decision to terminate Bengtsson's employment. Given that neither Bengtsson nor her attorneys had ever had the opportunity to meet Wu, let alone question him, Bengtsson moved in limine to exclude any evidence of Wu's alleged out of court statements. After hearing argument from both parties, the trial court ruled that Wu's alleged out of court statements were inadmissible because they were hearsay and were more prejudicial than probative under ER 403. However, the trial court also ruled that Sunnyworld would be permitted to introduce evidence that Sunnyworld's board consisted of three people,² that the board met in September 2016 and February 2017, that at both meetings the board discussed terminating Bengtsson, that the board voted unanimously in February 2017 to terminate Bengtsson, and that the reasons for that decision were related to financial concerns such as low enrollment.

¶ 9 During trial, Bengtsson testified to her experience working at Sunnyworld, her firing by Sunnyworld, and also that Sunnyworld falsely accused her of embezzlement after she filed her lawsuit. Yin and Kong also testified at trial, asserting that they fired Bengtsson due to financial mismanagement concerns, including concerns regarding enrollment and concerns regarding 20 transactions on the company debit card for which, they asserted, Bengtsson did not provide receipts. Sunnyworld also attempted to elicit testimony that Kong had found an additional 110 missing receipts after terminating Bengtsson, but the trial court barred the admission of this testimony because it was not relevant to the termination decision.³ Wu did not appear or testify at trial.

¶ 10 Following the presentation of evidence, each side presented its theory of the case to the jury, with Bengtsson arguing that her termination was motivated by discrimination against her due to her pregnancy and Sunnyworld arguing that her termination was premised solely on financial mismanagement. The jury then returned a verdict for Bengtsson, awarding her $400,000 in emotional harm damages and $66,430 in past and future earnings.

¶ 11 Thereafter, Sunnyworld unsuccessfully moved for a new trial. After the trial court denied the motion, Bengtsson successfully sought an award of attorney fees.

¶ 12 Sunnyworld appeals.

II

¶ 13 Sunnyworld contends that the trial court erred by: (1) excluding testimony regarding Wu's alleged statements to Sunnyworld's board about terminating Bengtsson's employment, (2) excluding evidence that Sunnyworld had, after firing Bengtsson, discovered that she had failed to provide receipts for 110 transactions on the company debit card, and (3) denying Sunnyworld's motion for a new trial because those evidentiary errors individually or cumulatively prejudiced Sunnyworld. We disagree.

A

¶ 14 " ‘The standard of review for evidentiary rulings made by the trial court is abuse of discretion.’ " Peralta v. State, 187 Wash.2d 888, 894, 389 P.3d 596 (2017) (quoting City of Spokane v. Neff, 152 Wash.2d 85, 91, 93 P.3d 158 (2004) ). Trial judges have "wide discretion in balancing the probative value of evidence against its potential prejudicial impact." Cole v. Harveyland, LLC, 163 Wash. App. 199, 213, 258 P.3d 70 (2011) (citing State v. Coe, 101 Wash.2d 772, 782, 684 P.2d 668 (1984) ). A trial court abuses that discretion when its ruling is " ‘manifestly unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds or reasons.’ " Veit v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp., 171 Wash.2d 88, 99, 249 P.3d 607 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, 168 Wash.2d 664, 668-69, 230 P.3d 583 (2010) ). However, "[e]videntiary error is grounds for reversal only if it results in prejudice." City of Seattle v. Pearson, 192 Wash. App. 802, 817, 369 P.3d 194 (2016) (citing State v. Bourgeois, 133 Wash.2d 389, 403, 945 P.2d 1120 (1997) ). "An error is prejudicial if ‘within reasonable probabilities, had the error not occurred, the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected.’ " City of Seattle, 192 Wash. App. at 817, 369 P.3d 194 (quoting State v. Smith, 106 Wash.2d 772, 780, 725 P.2d 951 (1986) ).

¶ 15 Similarly, we review the decision to deny a motion for a new trial, brought on the basis of asserted...