Dang Vang v. Vang Xiong X Toyed

Yia Moua (Moua) and Maichao Vang (Vang) and their husbands, Dang Vang and Yang Xiong (collectively, plaintiffs), filed a complaint against Vang Xiong X. Toyed (Xiong) individually and in his capacity as refugee counselor, alleging that Xiong had violated their constitutional rights while performing his official duties. Moua and Vang were both Hmong refugees from Laos. Xiong worked for the Washington State Employment Security Office. Xiong’s duties involved assisting refugees with finding employment. Moua indicated that one day, Xiong picked her up in connection with her need to study for a driver’s-license test. Instead of taking Moua to a place to study, Moua alleged that Xiong took her to a motel and raped her. Likewise, Vang alleged a similar experience with Xiong, indicating that he required her to travel with him to make a delivery to another Hmong family, and en route, he took her to a motel and raped her. Neither Moua nor Vang reported the rape right away, and both women continued to interact with Xiong while seeking employment. Before trial, Xiong sought the exclusion of testimony from Marshall Hurlich, an epidemiologist with the Seattle health department. Xiong’s motion in limine was denied in part and granted in part. Although Hurlich would not be permitted to testify regarding his opinion about issues in the case, such as whether rape occurred or why Moua and Vang did not report these crimes, Hurlich would be permitted to testify generally about Hmong culture. Neither the plaintiffs nor Xiong could find another expert who could aid the jury in understanding who the Hmong people were and why they responded as they did in the context of various relationships. At trial, Hurlich provided a description of Hmong culture and explained Moua and Vang’s conduct within the context of Hmong culture. Hurlich explained the submissiveness of women within Hmong culture who are raised to be obedient to men and discussed related topics, such as sex, marriage, and infidelity. Hurlich also shed light on the extreme reliance that Hmong refugees had on government officials, without whom their needs would not be met and they would not survive. As a result, the Hmong held government officials in awe. A jury found against Xiong, and the plaintiffs were awarded $300,000. Xiong appealed, arguing in part that Hurich’s testimony should not have been admitted because it was not relevant and was unduly prejudicial to him.