Employment Discrimination Jury Trial Resulting in Defense Verdict
The Challenge: High-Exposure Employment Claims in Plaintiff-Friendly Venue
O’Hagan Meyer attorneys, alongside Coastal Transportation, Inc.’s outside counsel, represented a small, family‑owned marine freight company in a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by its former HR Manager in King County, Washington. The plaintiff asserted claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Washington Law Against Discrimination.
The plaintiff alleged that her termination was based on scoliosis and a hip condition, and that the company retaliated against her for opposing another employee’s termination and requesting a hybrid work schedule. She sought nearly $600,000 in claimed economic damages, along with unspecified emotional distress damages, in a jurisdiction known for substantial plaintiff awards.
The Solution: Focused Trial Strategy and Evidentiary Challenges
After extensive preparation, the case proceeded to a three‑week jury trial in Washington Superior Court, King County, beginning January 26, 2026. The O’Hagan Meyer trial team navigated complex evidentiary issues and countered arguments relying on Washington’s “substantial factor” causation standard, which can allow plaintiffs to prevail even when legitimate business reasons for termination exist.
The defense demonstrated that Coastal Transportation terminated the plaintiff due to documented performance deficiencies and that the company had granted her request for a hybrid work arrangement in February 2024. This evidence undercut claims that the termination decision was discriminatory or retaliatory.
The Outcome: Complete Defense Victory
After deliberation, the jury returned a complete defense verdict on all claims, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof under the Washington Law Against Discrimination.
The verdict represented a significant win for the client in a challenging venue and eliminated the risk of substantial financial liability. The outcome reinforced that employers retain the right to make personnel decisions based on legitimate business needs, even in a demanding employment litigation environment.
