WA Court of Appeals Upholds $21 Million Verdict in Race Discrimination Case: Danielson v. Seattle Children’s Hospital

May 27

Executive Summary

On May 26, 2026, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, unanimously affirmed a $21 million jury verdict in favor of Dr. Benjamin Danielson, the former Medical Director of Seattle Children's Hospital's Odessa Brown Children's Clinic, in a race discrimination case brought under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The court also affirmed an award of $2,068,582.49 in attorney fees, bringing the total judgment to over $23 million.

Danielson alleged that during his 21-year tenure at the clinic, the hospital subjected him to a racially hostile work environment — including a senior administrator's use of a racial slur in reference to him that went uninvestigated for over a decade — and retaliated against him after he raised concerns about discriminatory practices at a board meeting. After a 16-day trial, a King County jury returned a 10–2 verdict in Danielson's favor on both claims in December 2024. Danielson sought only non-economic damages.

In a 28-page unpublished opinion authored by Judge Díaz, the appellate court rejected the hospital's challenges on every ground raised — including sufficiency of the evidence, the statute of limitations, the admission of the hospital's own post-resignation investigative report (the Covington report) under ER 407, jury instructions, the retaliation finding, and the hospital's motion for remittitur. The court expressly declined to reach the question of whether evidence of systemic institutional racism can independently support a hostile work environment claim, leaving that issue open in Washington.

  
      Danielson v. Seattle Children's Hospital — Appellate Decision Summary
    
      Case
      Danielson v. Seattle Children's Hospital, No. 87793-3-I (Wash. Ct. App. May 26, 2026) (unpublished)
    
      Trial Court
      King County Superior Court (Judge Ken Schubert)
    
      Appellate Court
      Washington Court of Appeals, Division I (Díaz, J.; Birk, J.; Mann, J.)
    
      Trial Verdict
      December 23, 2024 (10–2 jury verdict, 16-day trial)
    
      Appellate Decision
      May 26, 2026 — Affirmed (Unanimous)
    
      Claims
      Racially Hostile Work Environment; Retaliation (WLAD, ch. 49.60 RCW)
    
      Plaintiff / Respondent
      Dr. Benjamin Danielson (Former Medical Director, Odessa Brown Children's Clinic)
    
      Defendant / Appellant
      Seattle Children's Hospital
    
      Plaintiff's Trial Counsel
      Schroeter Goldmark & Bender 
    
      Plaintiff's Appellate Counsel
      Gupta Wessler LLP 
    
      Defense Counsel
      Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 
    
      Verdict (Affirmed)
      $21,000,000 (Non-Economic Damages) + $2,068,582 Attorney Fees

Key Findings

• Liability: Jury found Seattle Children’s Hospital liable for (1) creating a racially hostile work environment and (2) retaliation, both under the WLAD. Affirmed on appeal.

• Damages: $21,000,000 in non-economic damages (emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, disillusionment). No economic damages sought.

• Attorney Fees: $2,068,582.49 awarded under RCW 49.60.030 and affirmed on appeal.

• Appellate Ruling: Unanimous affirmance. The court rejected the hospital’s challenges to the hostile work environment verdict, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, retaliation verdict, and damages.

Factual Background

Dr. Benjamin Danielson, an African American pediatrician, served as Medical Director of the Odessa Brown Children’s Clinic—a satellite clinic of Seattle Children’s Hospital that largely served African American patients—from 1999 until his resignation in November 2020. Danielson is also a clinical professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Danielson testified at trial that, throughout his 21-year tenure, other hospital employees doubted his intelligence and competence because of his race. He described being “either considered too loud or too quiet” and feeling that he was “a person not welcome in the space that [he] really felt was [his] professional home.” He testified that there was never a time during his entire employment when he believed that a hostile work environment did not exist.

Among the most prominent allegations was that Dr. Jim Hendricks, the president of an affiliated research institute, used a racial slur to refer to Danielson when speaking with another employee in 2007. That employee reported the incident to the president of the Seattle Children’s Foundation and to the hospital’s Chief Executive Officer. Despite these reports, the hospital did not adequately investigate or address the slur. When Danielson himself later raised the incident with the hospital’s medical director, David Fisher, Fisher changed the subject. Hendricks continued to work at the hospital until the end of 2020. He denied using the slur.

Danielson also presented evidence of systemic racism affecting both employees and patients. According to trial testimony, supervisors gave employees of color lower performance reviews “across the board” than their white peers. The OBCC building was not maintained to the same standard as the hospital’s main facility. Unlike other clinics, OBCC had to rely on donations for funding. The hospital used a “Code Purple” security protocol disproportionately involving Black families. Hospital staff were alleged to have mistreated children with sickle cell anemia, labeling them as “drug seeking.” Danielson testified that he experienced “secondary trauma” from witnessing the treatment of “people with [his] background.”

In September 2019, Danielson expressed concerns at a board of directors meeting that the hospital was deprioritizing funding commitments to the African American community that OBCC served. In March 2020, the hospital initiated an investigation into Danielson for a HIPAA violation related to his disclosure of the COVID status of certain employees. The investigation was later expanded to include whether Danielson had treated employees differently based on race or gender. In July 2020, the hospital recommended that Danielson undergo a “360 review” of his leadership and work with a leadership coach. Danielson testified that the hospital used these tools to “push [employees] out.” He also testified that around the same time, the hospital demoted him from a director role to an advisory role. He resigned in November 2020.

Following Danielson’s resignation, the hospital retained Covington & Burling—the law firm of former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder—to conduct an independent investigation and racial equity assessment. The resulting Covington report found, among other things, that the hospital had not adequately investigated the racial slur allegation and that the hospital work environment “excludes and undervalues BIPOC workforce members.”

Trial and Verdict

Danielson filed suit in King County Superior Court in October 2023, asserting claims under the WLAD for a racially hostile work environment and for retaliation. The hospital moved for summary judgment, which the court denied. The case was tried over 16 days before Judge Ken Schubert. The jury returned a 10–2 verdict in Danielson’s favor on both claims, awarding $21 million in non-economic damages. Danielson did not seek economic damages such as back pay or front pay; his claim was limited to emotional distress, humiliation, personal indignity, anxiety, and disillusionment. The trial court subsequently denied the hospital’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial, and for remittitur. The court also awarded $2,068,582.49 in attorney fees under RCW 49.60.030.

Appellate Decision

Seattle Children’s Hospital appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division I. In a unanimous, 28-page opinion filed May 26, 2026, the three-judge panel (Judge Díaz writing, Judges Birk and Mann concurring) affirmed the trial court on all grounds. The hospital’s appellate arguments and the court’s holdings are summarized below.

Hostile Work Environment — Substantial Evidence

The hospital argued that the trial court’s denial of summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law should be reviewed de novo and that Danielson had presented “no evidence of racially-motivated workplace harassment.” The court disagreed, applying a substantial evidence standard of review. The court held that, at a minimum, Danielson’s testimony that hospital staff doubted his competence because of his race, combined with the hospital’s failure to address a racial slur aimed directly at him, was sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find a hostile work environment. The court emphasized that it could not substitute its judgment for the jury’s.

The Racial Slur and the Statute of Limitations

The hospital argued that the 2007 racial slur fell outside the WLAD’s three-year statute of limitations and could not form the basis for a hostile work environment claim. The court rejected this argument, relying on Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d 256 (2004), and National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002), which hold that as long as one act contributing to a hostile work environment occurs within the filing period, the entire history of the hostile environment may be considered. The court applied Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (2012), to hold that the standard for linking discriminatory acts together in the hostile work environment context “is not high,” requiring only “some relationship” between the acts—not the more demanding “substantial relationship” test. The court found that, in the context of the hospital’s failure to address the slur, a reasonable juror could infer that the later discrimination Danielson described was a “natural extension” of the same hostile work environment.

The hospital also argued, citing Scaife v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 49 F.4th 1109 (7th Cir. 2022), that a single racial slur not personally witnessed by the plaintiff could not create a hostile work environment. The court distinguished Scaife, noting that unlike the plaintiff in that case, Danielson presented evidence of discrimination and implicit bias from other hospital employees beyond the slur itself. The court deferred to the jury’s determination based on the totality of the circumstances.

Evidentiary Rulings — ER 403 and ER 407

The hospital challenged two evidentiary rulings. First, it argued that admitting evidence of the racial slur was unduly prejudicial under ER 403. The court disagreed, holding that because racism was the central issue, the slur had high probative value, and it was not an abuse of discretion to find that the prejudice was not “unfair.”

Second, the hospital argued that the trial court should have given a limiting instruction on the Covington report, contending it was a “remedial measure” inadmissible to prove culpable conduct under ER 407. The court rejected this argument, relying on Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. Bell Helicopters Textron, 805 F.2d 907 (10th Cir. 1986), and its progeny, which hold that ER 407 does not protect reports or investigations into what went wrong—only the actual remedial measures taken in response. The court found that the Covington report’s finding that the hospital had not adequately investigated the racial slur did not serve a remedial end and was properly admitted without a limiting instruction.

Jury Instructions

The hospital argued that the trial court erred when it replaced the word “harassment” in the pattern jury instructions (WPI 330.21) with “hostile work environment.” The court found no error, holding that the elements Danielson was required to prove remained unchanged and that the hospital had not shown prejudice. The court also upheld the trial court’s refusal to give the hospital’s proposed clarifying instruction regarding “conditions of employment” (when the jury asked about that term during deliberations), finding that the proposed instruction would have amounted to impermissible judicial commentary on the evidence by directing the jury to weigh certain factors.

Retaliation

On the retaliation claim, the hospital argued that no reasonable juror could find retaliation based on the initiation of an investigation six months after Danielson’s September 2019 board meeting remarks. The court held that Danielson’s testimony at the board meeting—expressing the belief that the hospital was deprioritizing funding for the African American community—was a protected activity under Alonso v. Qwest Communications Co., 178 Wn. App. 734 (2013). The court found substantial evidence of an adverse employment action (the expanded investigation, recommended 360 review, and demotion to an advisory role) and a causal link (temporal proximity between the board meeting and the investigation). Citing Scrivener v. Clark College, 181 Wn.2d 439 (2014), the court held that even where an employer presents legitimate reasons for the adverse action, the plaintiff need only show that retaliation was a “substantial factor,” not the sole factor. The court further found substantial evidence that the hospital’s investigation had departed from standard procedure, noting Danielson’s testimony that an investigation initially limited to a HIPAA disclosure was “suddenly including all these other assessments.”

Remittitur

The hospital argued that the $21 million verdict was the product of passion or prejudice and should be remitted. The court, applying an abuse of discretion standard, disagreed. Citing Bunch v. King County Dep’t of Youth Services, 155 Wn.2d 165 (2005), the court noted the strong presumption in favor of a jury’s damages award and held that emotionally laden testimony regarding distress is proper evidence supporting a large non-economic damages verdict. The court observed that Danielson worked for 21 years in what the jury determined to be a hostile work environment—far longer than the six-year period upheld in Bunch—and that he testified to significant physical and psychological harm, including changes in cardiac function, sleep and eating patterns, and the inability to continue practicing medicine. The court held the amount was not “flagrantly outrageous” and that the record did not “unmistakably indicate” that the verdict was based on passion or prejudice rather than the evidence.

The hospital also argued that plaintiff’s counsel’s closing argument invited the jury to hold the hospital accountable for systemic racism broadly, rather than for the harm to Danielson individually. The court reviewed the challenged comments in context and found they were proper arguments inviting the jury to compensate Danielson for the harm he personally experienced. The court further noted that the jury was instructed to award damages that “reasonably and fairly compensate” Danielson, and that it presumes juries follow their instructions.

Systemic Racism as Evidence of Hostile Work Environment

One notable aspect of the opinion is what the court chose not to decide. Danielson argued that the hospital’s unaddressed systemic racism—including disproportionate security calls on Black families, mistreatment of sickle cell patients, and disparities in performance reviews—was additional evidence of a hostile work environment. The hospital countered that “systemic implicit bias” and “failure to fully eliminate institutional racial disparities” cannot constitute evidence of individual harassment. The court expressly declined to reach this question, holding that because Danielson had provided substantial evidence of a hostile work environment based on how employees treated him individually, the court “need not and do not address whether evidence of racial disparities, implicit bias, and systemic inequity that were not directed at Danielson individually are evidence of a hostile work environment.” That question remains open in Washington.

Analysis

Though unpublished (and therefore not binding precedent), this 28-page opinion touches on several issues that are directly relevant to practitioners handling WLAD hostile work environment and retaliation claims in Washington.

First, the continuing violation framework under Antonius and Loeffelholz. The court’s application of the “some relationship” standard to connect a 2007 racial slur to conduct within the 2020 limitations period demonstrates how far back a plaintiff can reach in building a hostile work environment claim in Washington—provided the plaintiff can show that the earlier acts were part of the same hostile environment, not merely discrete events. For defense counsel, the opinion underscores that a hospital or employer’s decision not to investigate or discipline a reported slur can itself become the connective tissue that links otherwise time-barred conduct to the ongoing environment. The institutional failure to act, in other words, may keep stale incidents alive.

Second, the Covington report and ER 407. The court’s holding that an investigative report is not a “remedial measure” under ER 407 is consistent with the majority approach (including the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in Packard v. City of Denver (2026)), but it is a cautionary result for employers who commission post-incident investigations. Employers should understand that the factual findings of such reports—particularly findings that prior complaints were not adequately addressed—may be fully admissible at trial and will not be shielded as remedial measures. The distinction between a report’s findings and the actual remedial actions taken in response is one that trial counsel should prepare to litigate.

Third, the size of the non-economic damages award. The $21 million award is entirely non-economic—no lost wages, back pay, or front pay were sought. Washington imposes no statutory cap on non-economic damages under the WLAD, and the court’s analysis makes clear that the duration of the hostile work environment is a key factor supporting large awards. The court explicitly relied on Bunch, which upheld a large non-economic damages award for a six-year period of employment discrimination, and noted that Danielson’s 21-year tenure was substantially longer. Combined with the attorney fee award of $2,068,582.49, the total judgment against the hospital exceeds $23 million. For employers, the case quantifies the cumulative exposure that can result from years of unaddressed workplace complaints.

Fourth, the retaliation holding. The court’s analysis confirms that under Scrivener, a WLAD retaliation plaintiff need not disprove the employer’s legitimate reasons for an adverse action—only show that retaliation was a “substantial factor.” The court found that testimony about an investigation that “suddenly” expanded beyond its original scope was itself substantial evidence of pretext. For defense counsel, this is a reminder that the scope and timing of internal investigations initiated after an employee’s protected activity will be scrutinized closely.

Fifth, the open question. The court’s express decision not to address whether evidence of systemic institutional racism (Code Purple disparities, sickle cell treatment practices, performance review gaps) can independently support a hostile work environment claim is one of the more intriguing aspects of the opinion. The question remains unresolved in Washington. If the hospital seeks discretionary review from the Washington Supreme Court and the Supreme Court takes the case, it could potentially provide guidance on this issue—or the question may arise in future litigation.

Seattle Children’s may seek further review from the Washington Supreme Court. The hospital’s public statement expressed disappointment but did not indicate whether it would petition for review. We will continue to monitor developments.

Documents

The slip opinion in Danielson v. Seattle Children’s Hospital, No. 87793-3-I (Wash. Ct. App. May 26, 2026) (unpublished).

Robert Gillette