Boyd v. State
| Citation | 187 Wash.App. 1,349 P.3d 864 |
| Decision Date | 03 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 45174–3–II.,45174–3–II. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Washington |
| Parties | Christopher BOYD, Respondent, v. STATE of Washington; DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES; and Western State Hospital, Appellants. |
Peter J. Helmberger, Office of the Attorney General, Tacoma, WA, for Appellants.
James Walter Beck, Gordon Thomas Honeywell, Tacoma, WA, for Respondent.
¶ 1 Western State Hospital (WSH) appeals the jury verdict and judgment against it in Christopher Boyd's employment retaliation case. It argues that the trial court erred when it denied WSH's CR 50 motion because some of the actions Boyd relied on were not adverse employment actions and there was no causal connection between Boyd's actions and the WSH's adverse employment actions. WSH also argues that the trial court erred by allowing Boyd to base liability on the cat's paw1 or subordinate bias theory. We hold that Boyd presented substantial evidence of adverse employment actions and a causal connection to support a verdict in his favor. The trial court correctly allowed Boyd to rely on the cat's paw theory where he presented evidence that a supervisor's animus was a substantial factor in WSH's decision to discipline him. We affirm and award Boyd attorney fees on appeal.
¶ 2 Boyd is a registered nurse at WSH. Patricia Maddox was a supervisor in the ward adjacent to Boyd's ward. She would cover Boyd's ward when his ward supervisor was absent. Initially, Maddox treated Boyd affectionately. She bought him t-shirts from her vacations. She would corner Boyd in the nurse's office and sit extremely close to him or position herself in a suggestive manner. Maddox referred to Boyd as “[h]er penis.” 3 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 257. Maddox also made suggestive comments to Boyd while he installed heaters at her house.
¶ 3 In April 2009, Boyd confronted Maddox and told her to leave him alone. Maddox responded by telling Boyd that if he told anyone about the harassment, she would “make sure that [he] can't work in any of the 50 states.” 8 RP at 983. After the confrontation, Maddox stopped acting affectionate toward Boyd and became hostile. Boyd did not immediately inform WSH of Maddox's behavior.
¶ 4 On December 26, 2009, Boyd delayed assessing a patient. Rod Bagsic, Boyd's co-worker, requested a patient assessment from Boyd at about 1:00 a.m. Boyd did not arrive immediately, and Bagsic called again. Boyd answered the phone and impersonated another employee. Bagsic asked where Boyd was, and Boyd left at that point to assess the patient. Bagsic gave the patient the requested medicine at 2:20 a.m .
¶ 5 Staff reported the incident to Maddox, who reported it to her supervisor. The supervisor directed Paula Cook–Gomez, Boyd's ward supervisor, to investigate the incident. Both Cook–Gomez and Maddox collected witness statements and conducted interviews regarding the incident.
¶ 6 During the investigation, Cook–Gomez overheard Boyd make statements that she perceived as threatening. Boyd had been discussing assault rifles with co-workers and the best way to bum a woman's body. He also demonstrated how to use a chef's knife in an allegedly threatening manner. Another staff member told Cook–Gomez that Boyd said, “[T]hey may fire me[,] but they will sure as hell remember me.” Ex. 94.
¶ 7 WSH assigned Maddox to investigate Boyd's alleged threats. On January 21, 2010, as a result of the ongoing investigation, WSH reassigned Boyd to another ward. He was not allowed patient interaction during his reassignment. WSH also reported Boyd's conduct to both the Department of Health and the police.
¶ 8 During an e-mail exchange on January 22, 2010, Maddox told Cook–Gomez “I don't trust [Boyd] about anything as he is known to lie.” 3 RP at 349. On January 26, 2010, Boyd told Maddox's supervisor that Maddox's presence at his disciplinary meeting made him uncomfortable. The supervisor e-mailed a Human Resources representative, who stated that Maddox could still attend the meeting and WSH would explain her presence as a training exercise.
¶ 9 At the disciplinary meeting, the witness who overheard Boyd say, “[T]hey may fire me, but they will sure as hell remember me,” told Maddox that Boyd's comment related to apple cider and she did not perceive it as threatening. Ex. 23. Maddox discussed the witness's “apple cider” explanation with Human Resources but did not include it in the report she provided to WSH's management. 3 RP at 358–59. Boyd asserted that his other comments were not meant as threats. Instead, he said they related to conversations about a television show, military training, and being careful with a knife while cooking.
¶ 10 Cook–Gomez and Maddox reported their findings to the Management Resource Team.2 The Management Resource Team reviewed the investigations and decided to present both matters to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and recommend that Boyd be disciplined.
¶ 11 In October 2010, the CEO sent Boyd a “Notice of Intent to Discipline.” Ex. 116. In December 2010, Boyd's attorney sent a letter to WSH regarding his sexual harassment allegations against Maddox. At that time, WSH decided to have David Rivera re-investigate all of the allegations against Boyd. First, Rivera limited his investigation of Boyd's alleged threats to Boyd's statement “they may fire me, but they will sure as hell remember me.”3 10 RP at 1426–27. After Rivera learned that the witness recanted her statement, Rivera closed his investigation without examining any of Boyd's other allegedly threatening statements.
¶ 12 Then, Rivera re-investigated the allegations that Boyd had failed to assess a patient. In exploring this matter, Rivera relied, in part, on the statements and interviews prepared by Maddox as well as his own interviews with witnesses. Rivera initially had difficulty scheduling an interview with Boyd. WSH ultimately decided to not re-interview Boyd. It relied on the interview conducted by Cook–Gomez and Maddox. Based on Rivera's findings, WSH concluded that the original investigation was fair.
¶ 13 On January 5, 2012, Boyd received a letter from WSH's CEO suspending him for two weeks without pay for failing to assess a patient and for impersonating a co-worker. On January 30, 2012, WSH's CEO issued Boyd a written reprimand for making threatening comments. The reprimand relied on Maddox's report. The reprimand listed Boyd's alleged comments, including statements about the damage a chef's knife could cause, how to bum a woman's body so it would be unidentifiable, the use of sniper rifles and AK–47s, and how WSH may fire him but it will remember him. WSH forwarded the reprimand to Boyd's new supervisor. Although other employees participated in the conversations about guns and burning bodies, only Boyd was disciplined.
¶ 14 On March 19, 2012, Boyd filed a complaint against WSH under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter 49.60 RCW, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. CP at 1. WSH moved for summary judgment. It argued that both the sexual harassment and retaliation claims should be dismissed. The trial court granted WSH's motion for summary judgment regarding the sexual harassment claim but denied the motion regarding the retaliation claim.
¶ 15 The case proceeded to jury trial and at the close of Boyd's case, WSH moved for judgment as a matter of law under CR 50. It argued that four of the bases for adverse employment actions—the investigation of Boyd's threatening comments, his written reprimand, and the two transfers to different wards—were not actionable. It also argued that Boyd failed to show a causal link between the protected activity and any adverse employment actions. Finally, it argued that it had non-retaliatory reasons for investigating Boyd. The trial court denied WSH's CR 50 motion.
¶ 16 The trial court gave the following “adverse employment action” instruction over WSH's objection:
An adverse employment action is defined as an employment action or decision that constitutes an adverse change in the circumstances of employment. An employment action is adverse if it is harmful to the point that it would dissuade a reasonable employee from making complaints of sexual harassment or retaliation. An adverse employment action must involve a change in employment conditions that is more than an inconvenience or alteration of job responsibilities.
¶ 17 The trial court gave the following “cat's paw” instruction over WSH's objection:
If a supervisor performs an act motivated by retaliatory animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse, employment action, and if that act is relied on by the employer and is a substantial factor in the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable for retaliation.
¶ 18 The trial court rejected WSH's 17–question proposed special verdict form, which listed several different alleged adverse employment actions. Instead, the trial court used a special verdict form that asked whether “the defendant retaliate[d] against the plaintiff,” and, if so, what is the total amount of damages, CP at 2169–70.
¶ 19 The jury found that WSH had retaliated against Boyd and awarded him $173,000. WSH appeals.
¶ 20 We review a trial court's denial of a CR 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo, engaging in the same inquiry as the trial court. Schmidt v. Coogan, 162 Wash.2d 488, 491, 173 P.3d 273 (2007). Judgment as a matter of law is proper only when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, substantial evidence cannot support a verdict for the nonmoving party. Schmidt, 162 Wash.2d at 491, 493, 173 P.3d 273.
¶ 21 We review alleged errors of law in jury instructions de novo. Blaney v. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Dist. No. 160, 151 Wash.2d 203, 210, 87 P.3d 757 (2004). Jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HBH v. State
...and permit each party to argue its theory of the case as to any matters the jury will decide. Boyd v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. , 187 Wash.App. 1, 11, 349 P.3d 864 (2015). However, even where the trial court erred in instructing the jury, we reverse only if the error prejudiced a party ......
-
Bell v. Boeing Co.
...indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities" are not adverse employment actions); Boyd v. State , 187 Wash.App. 1, 349 P.3d 864, 870 (2015) (mere "inconveniences" do not qualify). Indeed, even actions that are "disciplinary or investigatory in nature" do not s......
-
Marin v. King Cnty.
...but not, for instance, “yelling at an employee or threatening to fire an employee.”29 ¶ 34 Marin cites Division Two's recent decision in Boyd v. State30 to contend that the treatment he received, taken together, amounted to an adverse employment action. In that case, Boyd showed that his em......
-
Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp.
...a reasonable employee from making complaints of ... retaliation.’ " (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Boyd v. State, 187 Wash. App. 1, 15, 349 P.3d 864 (2015) ) ).5 Because the issue is not before us, for purposes of this appeal we assume that Cornwell’s prior legal action against......