Washington
How Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White applies in Washington: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Washington courts adopt a similar view to the federal standard regarding retaliation claims under Title VII. The state emphasizes that an adverse employment action must be significant enough to deter a reasonable worker from making or supporting a claim of discrimination.
In Washington, the legal principle derived from Burlington Northern supports that adverse employment actions, whether encompassing tangible employment benefits or not, must be objectively analyzed to determine if they deter reasonable employees from exercising their rights.
The court held that evidence of psychological harm due to workplace retaliation met the threshold for an adverse employment action.
The court found that reassignment to a less favorable position, although no reduction in pay occurred, constituted an adverse employment action that could support a retaliation claim.
The court determined that a series of non-direct retaliatory actions could cumulatively create a hostile environment sufficiently related to the context of retaliation.
Washington law closely mirrors the federal standards set forth in Burlington Northern, placing emphasis on the substantiality of the adverse actions rather than merely the presence of any minor inconvenience. However, Washington courts may provide broader interpretations regarding what constitutes a retaliatory act compared to some federal court interpretations.
Retaliation claims under state law based on Burlington Northern principles are a frequent focus in Washington's bar exam, particularly relating to distinguishing between adverse employment actions.