June 2025 — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

June 26, 2025June 26, 2025

Pre-Litigation Settlement Caps: EEOC vs. WSHRC

Does the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) enforce pre-litigation settlement caps? Here’s my point of view.

IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.

Advertisement

Settling Employment Discrimination Claims: EEOC and WSHRC Settlement Caps

People who experience workplace discrimination often have the option to address their claims through federal or state agencies before filing a lawsuit.

NOTE: Individuals pursuing claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must first exhaust the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOCs) administrative prerequisites before filing suit in court — this is mandatory, not optional.

In Washington State, two main agencies that handle these matters are the EEOC and the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC), which enforces state-level protections. A crucial question for those considering settlement through these agencies is whether any financial limits apply to the amount they can recover. The sections below take a closer look at whether such settlement caps exist in either forum.

1. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Settlement Cap

The EEOC* plays a crucial role in handling discrimination claims under federal laws, including Title VII. It investigates claims of discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions, transgender status, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information

In terms of settlement, the EEOC does not impose a specific dollar cap for settlements that occur during its investigation or conciliation process. Instead, the agency facilitates settlement discussions between the claimant (charging party) and the employer (respondent). The settlement amount is generally determined through negotiation and mutual agreement between both parties, with the goal of resolving the dispute efficiently without proceeding to litigation.

However, there are guidelines that could influence the settlement amount:

Back Pay and Front Pay: Settlements may include financial compensation for lost wages (back pay) or future lost wages (front pay), depending on the circumstances of the case.

Compensatory Damages: Claimants may be eligible for compensatory damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, and other non-economic losses. These damages are capped depending on the size of the employer’s business, as prescribed by the Civil Rights Act. See Punitive Damages, below.

Punitive Damages: Title VII allows for the recovery of punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination with malice or reckless indifference. Such recoveries are–similar to compensatory damages–capped depending on the size of the employer’s business.

NOTE: Limits on Compensatory & Punitive Damages. There are limits on the amount of compensatory and punitive damages a person can recover. These limits vary depending on the size of the employer:

• For employers with 15-100 employees, the limit is $50,000.

• For employers with 101-200 employees, the limit is $100,000.

• For employers with 201-500 employees, the limit is $200,000.

• For employers with more than 500 employees, the limit is $300,000.

Attorney’s Fees, Expert Witness Fees, and Court Costs: A victim of discrimination also may be able to recover attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and court costs.

While the EEOC does not impose a strict cap, settlement amounts in cases that the EEOC resolves are often guided by the circumstances of the claim and the financial situation of the employer.

2. Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) Settlement Cap

In Washington State, the WSHRC handles, inter alia, claims of employment discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) — it is responsible for enforcing the WLAD. The WSHRC works similarly to the EEOC* but addresses claims under state law.

One notable difference, however, is that the WSHRC has specific caps for pain and suffering awards by administrative law judges (ALJ) under the WLAD. The maximum amount of damages that an appointed ALJ can award to an employment-discrimination claimant for humiliation and mental suffering is $20,000. See RCW 49.60.250(5)*. Moreover, based on my previous communications the WSHRC, even if the parties settle the claim before appointment of an ALJ, the maximum settlement amount a claimant can recover for pain and suffering in a WSHRC-administered settlement remains $20,000. This cap is part of the administrative process under the WLAD and applies specifically to settlements facilitated by the WSHRC before arbitration or filing a lawsuit.

That said, claimants who seek settlements beyond this $20,000 cap still have options. They can pursue private settlements outside of the WSHRC administrative process. In these cases, the parties involved may agree to a settlement that exceeds the WSHRC cap. However–based on my experience–the WSHRC will likely require the parties to report any such settlement to the WSHRC if the claims are still under active investigation by the agency. This reporting requirement ensures that the WSHRC is aware of the resolution, even if it falls outside the agency’s prescribed settlement limits.

Conclusion

Both the U.S. EEOC and the WSHRC provide opportunities for claimants to resolve employment discrimination disputes without proceeding to litigation, but the processes differ in key respects. While the EEOC does not impose a specific settlement dollar cap, settlements are guided by the nature of the claim and the employer’s financial capacity. In contrast, the WSHRC does have a cap for pain and suffering settlements, limiting them to $20,000 under the Washington Law Against Discrimination; claimants seeking to exceed this amount may still pursue private settlements, provided they comply with reporting requirements if the WSHRC is involved in the investigation.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» EEOC: The Notice of Right to Sue

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

» What is WA State’s Law Against Employment Discrimination?

» WSHRC: Organization and Operations

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

–gw

June 15, 2025August 7, 2025

WSHRC: Investigation

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what is the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”) regulation concerning investigation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Understanding WAC 162-08-094: A Simple Explanation of the Investigation Process for Discrimination Complaints in Washington State

If you’ve ever filed or responded to a WSHRC discrimination complaint, it’s helpful to understand how that agency handles investigations. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 162-08-094 outlines key steps in this process. The relevant provision states as follows:

WAC 162-08-094
Investigation.

(1) Copy of complaint to respondent. Except as may be provided for complaints alleging an unfair practice in a real estate transaction, within a reasonably prompt time after a complaint is filed the staff shall furnish a copy of the complaint to the respondent and shall afford the respondent an opportunity to reply in writing. No error or omission in carrying out this step shall affect the validity of the complaint or prevent further processing of it.

(2) Preliminary evaluation of complaint. Whenever the allegations of the complaint, if true, show no basis for commission action, then the staff without further investigation may enter a finding of no reasonable cause or write a recommendation for a finding of no jurisdiction, or other appropriate disposition.

(3) Scope of investigation. The investigation is limited to ascertaining the facts concerning the unfair practice(s) alleged in the complaint. RCW 49.60.240.

WAC 162-08-094*. Here’s a plain-language overview to help you understand what this rule means.

Step 1: Notifying the Respondent

Once a discrimination complaint is filed—except in cases involving real estate—the person or organization being accused (called the respondent) will receive a copy of the complaint. The Commission will also give them a chance to respond in writing. Even if there’s a delay or error in this notification, it doesn’t invalidate the complaint or stop the investigation from moving forward.

Step 2: Early Review of the Complaint

Before launching a full investigation, the Commission takes a preliminary look at the complaint. If, even assuming the allegations are true, there’s no legal basis for the Commission to act, they may decide to:

• Dismiss the complaint (finding “no reasonable cause”),

• Recommend that the Commission doesn’t have jurisdiction (authority),

• Or suggest another appropriate outcome.

This step helps ensure that only valid complaints move forward.

Step 3: Focused Fact-Finding

If the complaint proceeds, the investigation will focus solely on the facts related to the specific unfair practice alleged. This means investigators won’t go on a broad search—they’ll stick to what’s directly relevant to the complaint, as required by state law (RCW 49.60.240*).

In Summary

This rule outlines how the Washington State Human Rights Commission manages the early stages of a discrimination complaint. It ensures that both parties are informed and treated fairly, starting with notification, followed by a careful review to determine if the complaint has legal grounds, and ending with a fact-based investigation focused on the specific issues raised. Understanding this process helps everyone involved know their rights and what steps may come next.

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» WA State Human Rights Commission Complaints

» WA State Human Rights Commission: Functions, Powers, and Duties

» WSHRC: From Complaint to Conclusion

» WSHRC: Organization and Operations

» WSHRC: Procedure When None Is Specified

» WSHRC: Relationship of Commission to Complainant

» WSHRC: Withdrawal of Complaint

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

–gw

June 12, 2025

Why Do Some Employers Unlawfully Discriminate?

Why do some employers unlawfully discriminate against their employees? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Why Employers Might Unlawfully Discriminate Against Their Employees — And Why It Matters

In the modern workplace, anti-discrimination laws have made significant strides in protecting individuals from unfair treatment based on race, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, and other protected characteristics. Despite this progress, workplace discrimination remains a persistent issue. Understanding why employers might engage in discriminatory practices — even in violation of clear legal standards — is critical for legal professionals, HR personnel, and compliance officers alike.

1. Implicit Bias and Stereotyping

Discrimination in the workplace often stems not from overt prejudice, but from unconscious biases—automatic associations and assumptions that can shape decisions without the decision-maker even realizing it. For instance, a supervisor might instinctively view men as more suitable for leadership roles or assume that older employees struggle with new technology. Though these biases may never be expressed aloud, they can influence important employment outcomes such as hiring, promotions, and disciplinary actions, often disadvantaging individuals in legally protected groups.

Legal Considerations:

Courts are increasingly acknowledging the role of implicit bias in employment discrimination cases, especially where patterns of unequal treatment or adverse impact are evident. Under laws like the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), evidence of unconscious bias can support claims of unlawful discrimination—even in the absence of direct or intentional misconduct.

2. Cultural “Fit” and the Homogeneity Trap

Hiring for “cultural fit” is a popular concept in many organizations, especially startups and smaller companies. However, this term can become a euphemism for maintaining homogeneity. Employers may, intentionally or not, exclude candidates who don’t mirror the dominant demographics or communication styles of existing teams.

While the desire for team cohesion is understandable, when “fit” becomes a code word for race, age, gender similarity, or other protected class, the legal exposure increases. Courts and agencies like the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) and U.S. EEOC scrutinize these practices for violation of associated employment-discrimination laws.

3. Economic Rationalizations

Some employers make decisions based on economic stereotypes — for example, assuming women are more likely to take maternity leave, or older workers will demand higher salaries or retire soon. These assumptions can result in discrimination cloaked in cost-saving rhetoric.

This kind of reasoning may violate laws like the WLAD, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), Equal Pay Act*, or ADEA*. Cost alone is not a defense to discriminatory practices.

4. Discriminatory Customer or Client Preferences

Another subtle driver of discrimination is the perceived preference of customers, clients, or even coworkers. For instance, an employer might believe that customers prefer to be served by younger, able-bodied, or white employees — and act accordingly.

Both the WLAD and associated Federal law is clear: employers cannot base employment decisions on customer preferences if those preferences reflect discriminatory bias based on protected class. The WLAD, Title VII, and related statutes do not carve out exceptions for such customer prejudices, no matter how commercially persuasive they might seem.

5. Inadequate Training and Compliance Infrastructure

In some cases, discrimination arises from negligence rather than malice. Employers may lack proper training, or they may fail to implement strong compliance programs that prevent bias from creeping into decision-making. This lack of oversight can result in systematic discrimination that violates state laws — even when no single person intends harm.

The legal lesson is clear: intent is not always required for liability. Under state-based disparate impact theories, a neutral policy or practice that disproportionately harms a protected class can trigger legal consequences, regardless of motive.

6. Combating Discrimination Proactively

For employers, the risk of litigation, reputational damage, and financial penalties should be motivation enough to root out discriminatory practices. For attorneys and compliance professionals, understanding these underlying causes can guide better training, policy design, and internal investigations.

Proactive strategies include but are not limited to:

• Mandatory implicit bias training for hiring managers;
• Structured interviews and standardized evaluations;
• Diversity audits and statistical monitoring;
• Clear, well-enforced anti-discrimination policies.

Conclusion

Discrimination against protected classes is rarely as blatant as it once was — but it is no less real. Whether driven by unconscious bias, flawed business logic, or misplaced priorities, discriminatory practices persist in ways that can expose employers to serious legal risk. Legal professionals must remain vigilant, not only in litigating claims but also in helping organizations recognize and eliminate the subtle forces that sustain inequality.

And for those Washington State employers that fail to heed these warnings: You may find me as opposing counsel in a lawsuit against your organization.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

» What is WA State’s Law Against Employment Discrimination?

LEARN MORE

–gw

June 7, 2025October 8, 2025

Constructive Discharge Is an Adverse Employment Action (9th Circuit)

Is constructive discharge considered an adverse employment action in the 9th Circuit? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our external blog or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

Constructive Discharge (or Termination)

In Washington State, resignation from employment is presumed to be voluntary. Molsness v. City of Walla Walla, 84 Wn. App. 393, 398, 928 P.2d 1108 (1996) (citing Sneed v. Barna, 80 Wn. App. 843, 912 P.2d 1035 (1996)). The legal theory of constructive discharge allows plaintiffs to rebut that presumption under both state (i.e., Washington Law Against Discrimination) and federal law (i.e., Title VII and Section 1981).

Constructive Discharge Is an Adverse Employment Action (9th Circuit)

The Ninth Circuit broadly defines an “adverse employment action” as “any action ‘reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity.’” Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840, 850 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2007)). “A constructive discharge–if proven–constitutes an adverse employment action.” Jordan v. Clark, 847 F.2d 1368, 1377 n.10 (9th Cir. 1988) (hyperlink added).

Accordingly, plaintiffs typically use constructive discharge to support viable legal theories of employment discrimination that require adverse employment actions to establish a prima facie case.

Read our related articles

» Effective Date for Constructive Discharge

» What Is Constructive Termination in WA State?

need help?

If you need help with your employment issue, then consider a consultation with an experienced employment discrimination attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

-gw

June 5, 2025

Employment Law 101: Settlement Agreements

In Washington State, what are settlement agreements within the context of employment-law litigation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Finality Through Compromise: The Role of Settlement Agreements in Employment Law

In employment disputes—often emotionally charged and legally complex—settlement agreements provide a structured and efficient path toward resolution. These agreements, rooted in the well-established principles of contract law, allow employers and employees to avoid the uncertainty and expense of protracted litigation. Courts in Washington, and across the country, consistently support settlements as essential tools for resolving workplace disputes with finality and fairness.

Settlement Agreements: Contracts with Legal Weight

Settlement agreements in the employment context function as legally enforceable contracts and are governed by traditional contract principles—requiring offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent. See Elgiadi v. Wash. State Univ. Spokane, 519 P.3d 939, 941 (Wash. App. 2022) (citing Stottlemyre v. Reed, 35 Wn. App. 169, 171, 665 P.2d 1383 (1983)).

Whether resolving a wrongful termination claim, a wage dispute, or allegations of workplace discrimination, the settlement process formalizes the parties’ agreement to dismiss legal claims in exchange for agreed-upon terms. Once executed, these contracts carry binding legal effect, providing closure and clarity for both employer and employee.

Mutual Concessions: The Nature of Employment Settlements

Employment settlements, like all compromises, involve mutual concessions with parties typically accepting less than what they believe they are entitled to in order to avoid the risks and burdens of litigation. See id. (citing Harding v. Will, 81 Wn.2d 132, 138, 500 P.2d 91 (1972); Strozier v. General Motors Corp., 635 F.2d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 1981); 15B AM. JUR. 2D COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS § 1 (2021)).

This is particularly true in employment disputes, where the cost of litigation, the unpredictability of jury verdicts, and the reputational stakes for both parties can be substantial. Employees may choose to settle for a guaranteed financial payment rather than risk a less favorable outcome at trial. Employers, in turn, often settle to avoid continued liability, disruption to business operations, and additional legal fees. See id. at 942.

A Strong Public Policy Favoring Settlement

Washington courts have repeatedly emphasized the strong public policy favoring settlements “and the finality they afford.” Id. at 941 (citing Haller v. Wallis, 89 Wash.2d 539, 544, 573 P.2d 1302 (1978)). Accordingly, “Washington jurisprudence recognizes a strong public policy encouraging settlements.” Id. at 941-42 (citing Am. Safety Cas. Ins. Co. v. City of Olympia, 162 Wash.2d 762, 772, 174 P.3d 54 (2007); City of Seattle v. Blume, 134 Wash.2d 243, 258, 947 P.2d 223 (1997); Seafirst Ctr. Ltd. P’ship v. Erickson, 127 Wash.2d 355, 366, 898 P.2d 299 (1995)).

In the employment context, this policy promotes quicker resolution of disputes, helping both parties move forward. It also supports a more cooperative legal environment—one that encourages dialogue and resolution rather than extended confrontation. Ultimately, settlements benefit the legal system by conserving judicial resources and providing certainty to the parties involved.

Finality: The Cornerstone of Settlement

A key aspect of any employment settlement agreement is finality. As emphasized in Haller v. Wallis, 89 Wash.2d at 544, 573 P.2d 1302, the legal system disfavors attempts to reopen resolved disputes. Once a settlement is reached and claims are released, the employer should be protected from further liability regarding the same issues.

This principle is especially important for employers, who often settle in order to eliminate the ongoing costs and uncertainties of litigation. Allowing a plaintiff to revisit settled claims would defeat the entire purpose of compromise, exposing employers to renewed legal exposure after paying to resolve the matter.

To ensure finality, settlement agreements in employment cases typically include comprehensive release of claims clauses. These provisions explicitly bar the employee from bringing future claims arising out of the same employment relationship or incident—giving employers the legal certainty they need to close the book on the dispute.

Conclusion

In employment law, where legal claims can carry high financial and reputational stakes, settlement agreements offer a vital path to resolution. Governed by contract principles and bolstered by strong public policy, these agreements serve both employer and employee by delivering certainty, efficiency, and finality. For employers and counsel alike, understanding the enforceability and purpose of settlement agreements is essential in navigating the complex world of workplace disputes.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» Illegal Contracts in Washington State

» Interpreting Releases in Washington State*

» The Adhesion Contract*

» Unenforceable Employment-Contract Provisions and Discrimination Claims*

» Washington Contract Law and Sham Consideration*

» WA State Contracts & the Context Rule*

» Washington Contract Law and Sham Consideration*

LEARN MORE

–gw