Source: https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I5724e54cdb2811e7a78ad16f5529158b?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:21:32+00:00

Document:
The plaintiff, (name of plaintiff), has a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. To mitigate means to avoid or reduce damages.
(3) The amount by which damages would have been reduced if plaintiff had used reasonable care and diligence in seeking those openings.
You should take into account the characteristics of the plaintiff and the job market in evaluating the reasonableness of the plaintiff's efforts to mitigate damages.
If you find that the defendant has proved all of the above, you should reduce your award of damages for wage loss accordingly.
This instruction is to be used when the plaintiff challenges as discriminatory a discrete employment decision, such as a termination or a failure to hire. When mitigation of damages other than for wage loss is at issue, see WPI 33.02, Avoidable Consequences—Failure to Secure Treatment.
Whether a mitigation instruction is used will typically depend on whether the employer has pleaded and offered proof on the defense.
“Failure to mitigate damages is an affirmative defense under CR 8(c).” Bernsen v. Big Bend Elec. Co-op., Inc., 68 Wn.App. 427, 433, 842 P.2d 1047 (1993); see also, Federal Signal Corp. v. Safety Factors, Inc., 125 Wn.2d 413, 438, 886 P.2d 172 (1994); Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 66 Wn.App. at 529.
Mitigation focuses on the reasonableness of the employee's conduct after the alleged discrimination has occurred. See Cobb v. Snohomish County, 86 Wn.App. 223, 232, 935 P.2d 1384 (1997) (“The doctrine of avoidable consequences [i.e., the duty to mitigate] applies only to damages for harm the plaintiff could have avoided after the tort was committed.”); Bernsen v. Big Bend Elec. Coop., 68 Wn.App. at 433.
“Success [at mitigation] is not required, nor is the failure to earn a substantial income dispositive of the question of whether a[n] … employee exercised reasonable diligence.” Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 66 Wn.App. at 530. See also Sutton v. Shufelberger, 31 Wn.App. 579, 581, 643 P.2d 920 (1982) (because the duty to mitigate only requires one to take reasonable steps, it is error to instruct jury the duty requires one to obtain another job).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.