The Court of Appeals held that whether Lukehart's “angry man” comment was a discriminatory act connected to her hostile work environment claim was a genuine issue of material fact. Loeffelholz v. Univ. of Wash., 162 Wash.App. 360, 367, 253 P.3d 483 (2011) (“[W]e conclude that the trial court erred by concluding as a matter of law that the comment was not sufficient to constitute a discriminatory act.”).

This doctrine, however, is only applicable to hostile work environment claims because such claims are "composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one unlawful employment practice . . . ." Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 162 Wn. App. 360, 367 (2011), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 175 Wn. 2d 264 (2012). In fact, the Supreme Court has specifically distinguished discrete acts that form the basis of retaliation claims from continuing practices that form the basis of hostile work environment claims.

"To establish a claim for hostile work environment, a plaintiff must prove that the harassment (1) was unwelcome, (2) was because [he] is a member of a protected class, (3) affected the terms and conditions of [his] employment, and (4) was imputable to [his] employer." Loeffelhoz v. University of Washington, 162 Wn. App. 360 (Wash. App. Div. 1 2011) (citing Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d 256 (2004)). Another statute, former RCW 38.40.060 (2007) (Military leave for public employees), provided, at the time of the events at issue in this case:

A statute applies prospectively unless it is curative or remedial in nature or unless the legislature provides for retroactive application. Densley v. Department of Ret. Sys., 162 Wn.2d 210, 223, 173 P.3d 885 (2007); Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 162 Wn.App. 360, 368, 253 P.3d 483 (2011). A remedial statute is one which relates to practice, procedures, and remedies.

162 Wn. App. 360, 253 P.3d 483 (2011), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 175 Wn.2d 264, 285 P.3d 854 (2012).

162 Wn.App. 360, 253 P.3d 483 (2011), affd in part, rev'd in part. 175 Wn.2d 264, 285 P.3d 854 (2012). Debra Loeffelholz sued the University of Washington for hostile work environment based on a supervisor's discriminatory statements.