Washington Employer Recovers $623,808.53 in Attorney's Fees and Costs After Winning Defense Verdict: Frates v. Coastal Transportation, Inc.

Executive Summary

In February 2026, a King County Superior Court jury returned a defense verdict for Coastal Transportation, Inc. on all claims brought by former HR Manager Kathleen M. Frates. Frates alleged that the family-owned marine freight company had discriminated against her on the basis of disability, failed to reasonably accommodate her disability, and retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity, all under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The jury rejected each claim after a three-week trial.

The result did not stop at the verdict. The court went on to order Frates to pay Coastal Transportation’s attorney’s fees and costs, a total judgment against her of $623,808.53. A losing plaintiff being ordered to underwrite the winning employer’s defense is an uncommon outcome in Washington employment litigation, where fee-shifting statutes more often run in the plaintiff’s favor. Frates has appealed.

Claim / Category	Verdict	Amount
Retaliation (WLAD)	Defense verdict	—
Disability discrimination (WLAD)	Defense verdict	—
Failure to accommodate (WLAD)	Defense verdict	—
Leave interference/retaliation (PFMLA)	Dismissed on summary judgment	—
Attorney’s fees (RCW 4.84.250)	Awarded to defendant	$404,684.50
Costs	Awarded to defendant	$219,124.03
Total judgment against plaintiff		$623,808.53

The Paid Family Medical Leave Act claims were dismissed on summary judgment before trial. The verdict and judgment are currently on appeal.

Case Information

Case: Kathleen M. Frates v. Coastal Transportation, Inc.

Case Number: No. 24-2-17273-4 SEA

Court: Superior Court of Washington for King County

Presiding Judge (Summary Judgment): Hon. William L. Dixon V

Presiding Judge (Trial): Hon. Jason Holloway

Trial: January 26, 2026 through February 13, 2026

Verdict: February 13, 2026

Judgment: March 27, 2026

Matter: Employment action alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the WLAD

Parties

Plaintiff. Kathleen M. Frates, former HR Manager at Coastal Transportation, Inc.

Defendant. Coastal Transportation, Inc., a family-owned Washington corporation headquartered in Seattle that operates five vessels transporting freight between Seattle and Alaska.

Counsel

Plaintiff’s Counsel

• Beck Chase Gilman, PLLC (Tacoma, Washington)

Defendant’s Counsel

• O’Hagan Meyer, PLLC (Seattle, Washington)

• Holmes Weddle & Barcott, P.C. (Seattle, Washington)

Key Findings

Defense verdict on every claim tried to the jury.

The jury found for the defendant on each of the three claims submitted: retaliation, disability discrimination (disparate treatment), and failure to reasonably accommodate a disability. The damages question on the verdict form was not reached.

The jury found Frates engaged in protected activity, but rejected the causal link.

In a notable feature of the verdict, the jury answered “Yes” to Question 2 on the verdict form, finding that Frates proved she opposed the termination of another Coastal employee, William “Bill” Weed. That finding established that Frates engaged in protected activity under the WLAD. The jury nonetheless returned a defense verdict on the retaliation claim, indicating it concluded that the protected activity was not a substantial factor in Coastal’s decision to terminate her employment.

Disability and protected activity were already established as a matter of law before trial.

Prior to trial, Judge Dixon granted partial summary judgment to Frates on two threshold elements. The court found as a matter of law that Frates had a legally recognized disability during her employment with Coastal, and that she had engaged in activity protected by the WLAD. The jury was instructed to accept both propositions as established, leaving only the question of whether those protected characteristics or activities were a substantial factor in Coastal’s decision to terminate her. The jury found they were not.

The PFMLA claims did not reach the jury.

In a separate pretrial ruling, Judge Dixon granted Coastal’s motion for partial summary judgment on Frates’s claims for leave interference and retaliation under the Washington Paid Family Medical Leave Act, eliminating those claims before trial.

A post-verdict fee award of $623,808.53.

Following the defense verdict, the court entered judgment on March 27, 2026, awarding Coastal Transportation $404,684.50 in attorney’s fees under RCW 4.84.250 and $219,124.03 in costs. The court reviewed Coastal’s cost bill and, after independent analysis, found the fees reasonable and appropriate.

Factual Background

August 2023 to March 2024. Kathleen Frates worked as the HR Manager for Coastal Transportation, Inc., a family-owned marine freight company headquartered in Seattle. Her tenure lasted approximately seven months.

According to the court’s jury instructions, Frates brought claims for both retaliation and disability discrimination. On the retaliation claim, she alleged she was terminated because she opposed what she reasonably believed to be violations of the WLAD toward another employee, identified on the verdict form as William “Bill” Weed, and because she asserted her own right to reasonable accommodation for medical purposes. On the disability discrimination claim, she alleged the company failed to accommodate her by terminating her rather than continuing to provide the accommodation she had requested.

The court’s instructions identified the nature of Frates’s disability as involving the neurological or musculo-skeletal body systems; a press release from defense counsel’s firm described it as scoliosis and a hip condition. The accommodation Frates requested was a hybrid work schedule to address back pain. According to the defense, Coastal had in fact granted the hybrid arrangement in February 2024, a point the defense emphasized as undermining the discrimination and retaliation narrative.

Coastal denied that it terminated Frates in retaliation or because of her disability, contending the termination rested on documented performance deficiencies. The trial record appears to have included contemporaneous internal documentation: Defense Exhibit 138, identified in Jury Instruction No. 11 as “Matt Yip’s ‘Kathy log,’” was admitted for a limited purpose. The jury could consider it on the issue of motive but not as evidence of the truth of the matters stated within it.

Frates sought nearly $600,000 in economic damages, based on the contention that she would have continued working until age 70, plus unspecified emotional distress damages. The case was tried over approximately three weeks before Judge Jason Holloway, commencing January 26, 2026. On February 13, 2026, the jury returned its verdict for the defendant on all claims.

Analysis

Washington’s “substantial factor” standard, and what was actually left for the jury to decide.

Discrimination and retaliation claims under the WLAD are governed by Washington’s “substantial factor” causation standard, which is more plaintiff-friendly than the federal but-for standard applied under Title VII. Jury Instruction No. 19 defined it: “‘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 Kathleen Frates would have been not terminated but for her disability.”

That instruction, citing WPI 330.32 and the Washington Court of Appeals’ decision in Johnson v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 159 Wn. App. 18 (2010), does not require a plaintiff to show her disability or protected activity was the primary reason for the adverse action, only a significant motivating factor. Because the court’s pretrial rulings had already removed disability and protected activity from dispute, the jury’s only remaining question was causation, and it resolved that question for the employer despite the lower bar.

A split verdict on retaliation: protected activity without a causal link.

The verdict form reveals a nuanced finding. On Question 2, the jury found that Frates proved she opposed the termination of William Weed, accepting a factual predicate of her retaliation case. But the jury’s defense verdict on Question 1 means it concluded that this protected activity, while real, was not a substantial factor in Coastal’s decision to terminate her. The jury accepted the what and rejected the why. For practitioners, it is a useful illustration that a plaintiff can prove protected activity occurred and still lose on causation if the employer establishes a credible, independent basis for the adverse action.

What made the fee award possible.

The financial outcome is the more unusual part of this case. Coastal recovered $404,684.50 in attorney’s fees under RCW 4.84.250 and RCW 4.84.260, plus $219,124.03 in costs, for a total judgment of $623,808.53 against Frates, a figure roughly equivalent to the economic damages she had sought. The award bears interest at 12 percent per annum from the date of entry, and the court reached it only after independently reviewing Coastal’s cost bill.

Fee-shifting statutes in employment litigation are typically written, and typically invoked, to make a losing employer responsible for a prevailing plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. A judgment running the other direction, against a plaintiff who took a WLAD case through a three-week jury trial, is comparatively rare and illustrates a risk that plaintiff-side verdicts do not surface: losing at trial can mean paying for both sides.

Context: defense verdicts in King County employment cases.

King County has a well-documented record of substantial plaintiff awards in employment and civil rights cases. Defense verdicts in this jurisdiction are comparatively rare and draw less public attention than the multi-million-dollar plaintiff verdicts that regularly emerge from King County juries. A defense verdict reached after the plaintiff’s disability and protected activity were already established as a matter of law, followed by a six-figure fee award against her, is a useful counterpoint to the assumption that King County juries are uniformly plaintiff-favorable in employment disputes.

Post-Trial Developments

On April 2, 2026, Frates filed a motion for revision of the judgment, supported by declarations from her counsel. Coastal filed its response on April 17, 2026, and Frates replied on April 20, 2026. On April 23, 2026, Frates filed a notice of appeal to the Washington Court of Appeals. The case is now pending on appeal.

Documents

The following documents from the trial court record are available for review:

• Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (November 3, 2025). Download PDF

• Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Disability, Protected Activity, and the Affirmative Defense of Failure to Mitigate (November 3, 2025). Download PDF

• Verdict Form (February 13, 2026). Download PDF

• Court’s Instructions to the Jury (February 13, 2026). Download PDF

• Judgment on Jury Verdict for Defendant Coastal Transportation, Inc. (March 27, 2026). Download PDF

This post is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The case discussed is currently on appeal; the outcome described reflects the trial court proceedings and may be modified on appellate review. The information presented is based on publicly available court filings. Gillette Mediation has no involvement in this case and takes no position on its merits.