Home Table of Contents

WPI 330.01.01 Employment Discrimination—General—Disparate Treatment—Burden of Proof—Substantial...

6A WAPRAC WPI 330.01.01Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 330.01.01 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part XVI. Employment
Chapter 330. Employment Discrimination
WPI 330.01.01 Employment Discrimination—General—Disparate Treatment—Burden of Proof—Substantial Factor
“Substantial factor” means a significant motivating factor in bringing about the employer's decision. “Substantial factor” does not mean the only factor or the main factor in the challenged act or decision. [“Substantial factor” also does not mean that(name of plaintiff)would have been [promoted] [hired] [not terminated] [not laid off] but for [his] [her] [age] [creed] [marital status] [national origin] [race] [citizenship or immigration status] [religion] [gender] [sexual orientation] [honorably discharged veteran status] [military status].]
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction with WPI 330.01 (Employment Discrimination—General—Disparate Treatment—Burden of Proof) to define the term “substantial factor.”
The bracketed final sentence distinguishes the “substantial factor” analysis of causation from the traditional “but for” analysis. The sentence should be used only in cases that have some claims that are subject to the “substantial factor” analysis and other claims that are subject to the “but for” analysis.
COMMENT
This instruction has been modified for this edition to add “citizen or immigration status” and move “disability” to WPI 330.31– .37.
The Legislature added “citizenship or immigration status” to Washington's Law Against Discrimination effective June 11, 2020. This instruction was revised in 2020 to reflect this statutory change.
The Supreme Court approved the definition of “substantial factor” in Scrivener v. Clark College, 181 Wn.2d 439, 444, 334 P.3d 541 (2014) (citing Mackay v. Acorn Custom Cabinetry, Inc., 127 Wn.2d 302, 310, 898 P.2d 284 (1995)). See also Currier v. Northland Servs., Inc., 182 Wn.App. 733, 746–47, 332 P.3d 1006 (2014).
[Current as of November 2020.]
End of Document