WPI 330.41 Employment Discrimination—Discrimination Based on Religion or Creed—Reasonable Accom...
6A WAPRAC WPI 330.41Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 330.41 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Part XVI. Employment
Chapter 330. Employment Discrimination
WPI 330.41 Employment Discrimination—Discrimination Based on Religion or Creed—Reasonable Accommodation—Burden of Proof
Discrimination in employment on the basis of religion or creed is prohibited. One form of unlawful discrimination is a failure to reasonably accommodate an employee's bona fide religious belief, creed, practice or observance.
To establish [his] [her] claim of discrimination on the basis of failure to reasonably accommodate a religious belief, creed, practice or observance,(name of plaintiff)has the burden of proving each of the following elements:
(1) That(name of plaintiff)had a bona fide religious belief or creed, the practice or observance of which conflicted with employment duties;
(2) That(name of plaintiff)either informed(name of employer)of the belief, creed, practice or observance and the conflict, or(name of employer)was on notice of the belief, creed, practice or observance and the conflict; and
(3) That(name of employer)responded by subjecting [him] [her] to threatened or actual discriminatory treatment.
If you find from your consideration of all of the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, then your verdict should be for(name of plaintiff)[on this claim]. On the other hand, if any of these propositions have not been proved, your verdict should be for(name of employer)[on this claim].
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction with WPI 330.40 (Employment Discrimination—Discrimination Based on Religion or Creed—Reasonable Accommodation—Definition) and, when appropriate, WPI 330.42 (Employment Discrimination—Discrimination Based on Religion or Creed—Failure to Accommodate—Defense of Undue Hardship—Burden of Proof). Use the appropriate bracketed language depending on whether the jury will be instructed on an undue hardship defense.
This instruction may need to be modified or a separate instruction created if the employer asserts as a defense that it offered the employee a reasonable accommodation. See Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 325 P.3d 193 (2014).
RCW Chapter 49.60.
This instruction was modified for this edition to include the term “creed,” which is used in the statute. The instruction is derived from Kumar v Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 501–02, 325 P.3d 193 (2014). With respect to the second element, the phrase “or the employer was on notice …” is included to incorporate the court's holdings that with respect to disability accommodation, the employee is not required under the Washington Law Against Discrimination to request an accommodation. Rather, the employer's duty is triggered by the employer being on notice of a disability and its accompanying limitations. Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 145, 94 P.3d 930 (2004); Hill v. BTCI Income Fund I, 144 Wn.2d 172, 193, 23 P.3d 440 (2001).
[Current as of October 2020.]
Westlaw. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
|End of Document|