Disability Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

April 9, 2026April 25, 2026

Personality Tests and Employment Discrimination

To what extent do personality tests used in job screenings create a risk of employment discrimination under Washington State law? 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

When Personality Tests Become Discrimination: A Growing Risk in Washington Hiring

Washington employers increasingly rely on personality tests, behavioral assessments, and algorithm‑driven screening tools to sort job applicants. These tools promise efficiency and objectivity — but they also create real risks under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), especially in Pierce and King Counties where tech‑driven hiring is common.

Why These Tests Raise Red Flags

Many personality assessments measure traits that correlate with protected conditions. For example:

• “Stress tolerance” scores may penalize applicants with anxiety disorders.

• “Adaptability” metrics can disadvantage neurodivergent candidates.

• “Energy level” ratings may screen out individuals with chronic health conditions.

Under WLAD, discrimination doesn’t require intent. If a hiring tool disproportionately excludes people with disabilities—or any protected class—the employer may be liable even if the tool was purchased from a third‑party vendor.

Washington’s Broader Legal Standard

Unlike federal law, WLAD is interpreted liberally* in favor of employees. Employers should be wary of outsourcing discrimination to software, consultants, or automated systems. If the tool creates a disparate impact, the employer should own the consequences.

This means a well‑meaning HR department in Tacoma or Seattle might inadvertently violate WLAD simply by relying on a vendor’s “validated” assessment that screens out protected groups.

What Employers Should Be Doing (opinion)

To stay compliant, I believe Washington employers should:

• Audit any personality or behavioral test for disparate impact.

• Request validation studies specific to the job and region — not generic national data.

• Offer accommodations or alternative assessments when disability may affect results.

• Avoid blanket reliance on automated scoring or algorithmic rankings.

These steps are beyond best practices and are increasingly necessary as regulators and courts scrutinize algorithmic hiring.

What Employees Should Know

If you were rejected after taking a personality test or online assessment, and you believe the results were influenced by a disability or other protected characteristic, you may have rights under WLAD. Washington law allows applicants to challenge discriminatory screening tools even before they are hired.

Conclusion

As hiring becomes more automated, Washington’s anti‑discrimination laws remain firmly human‑centered. Employers in WA State should treat personality tests and algorithmic tools with caution — and applicants should know that a computer‑generated rejection isn’t always the final word.

Read Our Related Articles

» Employment Discrimination Based Upon Cannabis Use (WA State)

» Job Applicants and Criminal Records

» Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

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

February 15, 2026March 26, 2026

Disability-Based Hostile Work Environment

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, how does one establish a disability-based hostile work environment case via circumstantial evidence? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: 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

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE: DISABILITY-BASED HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT VIA CIRCUMSTANIAL EVIDENCE

To establish a disability-based hostile work environment case via circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by proving:

(1) that the plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the antidiscrimination statute[, WLAD],

(2) that the harassment was unwelcome,

(3) that it was because of the disability,

(4) that it affected the terms and conditions of employment, and

(5) that it was imputable to the employer.

Robel v. Roundup Corporation, 148 Wn.2d 35 (Wash 2002) at 45.

SECOND ELEMENT (UNWELCOME)

To establish that the harassment was unwelcome, “the plaintiff must show that he or she ‘did not solicit or incite it’ and viewed it as ‘undesirable or offensive.'” Id. (citing Glasgow v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 406, 693, P.2d 708 (Wash. 1985)) (hyperlink added).

THIRD ELEMENT (BECAUSE OF DISABILITY)

To establish that the harassment was “because of disability,” requires “[t]hat the disability of the plaintiff-employee be the motivating factor for the unlawful discrimination.” Id. at 46 (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406, 693 P.2d 708)) (alteration in original). This element requires a nexus between the specific harassing conduct and the particular injury or disability. Id.

FOURTH ELEMENT (TERMS & CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT)

To establish that the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, “the harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id. at (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406, 693 P.2d 708)).

“[A] satisfactory finding on this element should indicate “that the conduct or language complained of was so offensive or pervasive that it could reasonably be expected to alter the conditions of plaintiff’s employment.'” Id. (citing 6A WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CIVIL 330.23, at 240) (alteration in original).

FIFTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO EMPLOYER)

To impute harassment to an employer, “the jury must find either that[:]

(1) an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participate[d] in the harassment or that

(2) the employer … authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonably prompt adequate corrective action.”

Id. at 47 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (second alteration in original) (paragraph formatting added).

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

Definition of Prima Facie Case**

Disability-Based Hostile Work Environment

Harassment & Terms or Conditions of Employment: A Closer Look

Hostile Work Environment: Imputing Harassment to Employer

Hostile Work Environment: Terms or Conditions of Employment

Hostile Work Environment: The Unwelcome Element

McDonnel Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework**

Protected Classes

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (WA State)

The Prima Facie Case: Hostile Work Environment

Top 3 Hostile Work Environment Issues

WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

WLAD: Imputing Harassment to Employers**

** (NOTE: This is an external link that will take you to our Williams Law Group Blog.)

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.

September 15, 2025October 2, 2025

What are the elements of Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in WA State?

Advertisement

What are the elements of Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in WA State?

answer:

“An employee claiming his or her employer failed to accommodate a disability must prove that[:]

(1) the employee suffered from a disability,

(2) the employee was qualified to do the job at issue,

(3) the employee gave his or her employer notice of the disability, and

(4) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate that disability.

Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc.*, 12 Wn.App.2d 557, 586 (Div. 2 2020), review denied, 468 P.3d 616 (2020) (citing LaRose v. King County, 8 Wn.App.2d 90, 125-26, 437 P.3d 701 (2019)) (paragraph formatting, emphasis, and hyperlinks added).

The above elements formulate a prima facie case of Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Washington State.

Definitions of Service Animal Trainee and Trainer (WLAD)

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), what are the definitions of “service animal trainee” and “service animal trainer”? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

The WLAD is a potent statute enacted in 1949, and it covers a broad array of categories, including the following:

Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of civil rights.

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

(c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without discrimination, including discrimination against families with children;

(d) The right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination;

(e) The right to engage in insurance transactions or transactions with health maintenance organizations without discrimination: PROVIDED, That a practice which is not unlawful under RCW 48.30.300, 48.44.220, or 48.46.370 does not constitute an unfair practice for the purposes of this subparagraph;

(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists … ; and

(g) The right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.

RCW 49.60.030(1) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added). The WLAD protects, inter alia, employees from the unfair practices of employers.

UNFAIR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS

Under the WLAD, certain employers are prohibited from engaging in specific unfair practices in employment. The relevant law states as follows:

It is an unfair practice for any employer:

[REFUSE TO HIRE]

(1) To refuse to hire any person because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification: PROVIDED, That the prohibition against discrimination because of such disability shall not apply if the particular disability prevents the proper performance of the particular worker involved: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require an employer to establish employment goals or quotas based on sexual orientation.

[dISCHARGE OR BAR FROM EMPLOYMENT]

(2) To discharge or bar any person from employment because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability.

[DISCRIMINATE IN COMPENSATION OR IN OTHER TERMS/CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT]

(3) To discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability: PROVIDED, That it shall not be an unfair practice for an employer to segregate washrooms or locker facilities on the basis of sex, or to base other terms and conditions of employment on the sex of employees where the commission by regulation or ruling in a particular instance has found the employment practice to be appropriate for the practical realization of equality of opportunity between the sexes.

[STATEMENTS, ADVERTISEMENTS, PUBLICATIONS, APPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT, INQUIRIES IN CONNECTION WITH PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYMENT]

(4) To print, or circulate, or cause to be printed or circulated any statement, advertisement, or publication, or to use any form of application for employment, or to make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment, which expresses any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification: PROVIDED, Nothing contained herein shall prohibit advertising in a foreign language.

RCW 49.60.180 (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION

The WLAD also outlaws certain types of retaliation: “[i]t is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination], or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination].” RCW 49.60.210. Moreover, “[i]t is an unfair practice for a government agency or government manager or supervisor to retaliate against a whistleblower as defined in chapter 42.40 RCW.” RCW 49.60.210.

NOTE: The foregoing unfair practices are based upon specific protected classes.

DEFINITIONS OF “SERVICE ANIMAL TRAINEE” AND “SERVICE ANIMAL TRAINER”

As established above, the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is one among a variety of protected classes under the WLAD. Accordingly, the WLAD defines the terms “service animal trainer” and “service animal trainee” as follows:

(26) “Service animal trainee” means any dog or miniature horse that is undergoing training to become a service animal.

(27) “Service animal trainer” means an individual exercising care, custody, and control over a service animal trainee during a course of training designed to develop the service animal trainee into a service animal.

RCW 49.60.040(26-27)* (hyperlink added).

WLAD REMEDIES

Victims of discrimination in violation of the WLAD may seek generous remedies. “Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in violation of … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination] shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.).” RCW 49.60.030(2).

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

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

» Definition of Service Animal (WLAD)

» Liability for Killing or Injuring Dog Guide or Service Animal (WA State)

» License Waiver for Dog Guide and Service Animals (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

February 1, 2025February 12, 2025

Filing a Workers’ Compensation Claim and Discrimination (WA State)

Filing a Workers' Compensation Claim and Discrimination (WA State)

Under Washington State workers’ compensation laws, may an employer discriminate against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

THE WASHINGTON INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE ACT (“ACT”) AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS: DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED

“Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act provides that ‘[n]o employer may discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed or communicated to the employer an intent to file a claim for compensation or exercises any rights provided under this title.'” Robel v. Roundup Corporation, 148 Wn.2d 35, 48-49 (Wash 2002) (citing RCW 51.48.025(1)) (alteration in original) (emphasis added).

The relevant law, RCW 51.48.025(1), states as follows:

Retaliation by employer prohibited—Investigation—Remedies.

(1) No employer may discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed or communicated to the employer an intent to file a claim for compensation or exercises any rights provided under this title. However, nothing in this section prevents an employer from taking any action against a worker for other reasons including, but not limited to, the worker’s failure to observe health or safety standards adopted by the employer, or the frequency or nature of the worker’s job-related accidents.

Id. (emphasis added).

THE COMPLAINT PROCESS

Under the Act, “[a]ny employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by an employer in violation of this section may file a complaint with the director alleging discrimination within ninety days of the date of the alleged violation.” RCW 51.48.025(2) (emphasis added). In this case, the term “‘Director’ means the director of labor and industries.” RCW 51.08.060.

Accordingly, “[u]pon receipt of such complaint, the director shall cause an investigation to be made as the director deems appropriate. Within ninety days of the receipt of a complaint filed under this section, the director shall notify the complainant of his or her determination.” Id.

“If upon such investigation, it is determined that this section has been violated, the director shall bring an action in the superior court of the county in which the violation is alleged to have occurred.” Id.

RIGHT OF PRIVATE ACTION — ADDITIONAL LEGAL THEORIES

However, “[i]f the director determines that this section has not been violated, the employee may institute the action on his or her own behalf.” RCW 51.48.025(3).

IMPORTANT: Pursuant to other laws (e.g., The Washington Law Against Discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, WA State torts, etc.), additional legal theories may form the basis for relief depending on the circumstances of each case. Speak to a knowledgeable employment attorney to learn more.

REMEDIES

“In any action brought under this section, the superior court shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to restrain violations of subsection (1) of this section and to order all appropriate relief including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee with back pay.” RCW 51.48.025(4) (referring to RCW 51.48.025(1)).

LEARN MORE

November 21, 2024November 21, 2024

Liability for Killing or Injuring Dog Guide or Service Animal (WA State)

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, is there a provision concerning the killing or injuring of a dog guide or service animal? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WLAD — LIABILITY FOR KILLING OR INJURING DOG GUIDE OR SERVICE ANIMAL

In Washington State, the rights of individuals with disabilities are protected under a variety of laws, including those governing the treatment of dog guides and service animals. One key WLAD provision is RCW 49.60.370*, which outlines the penalties and remedies for the killing or injury of such animals.

Under this law, if a person negligently or maliciously kills or injures a dog guide or service animal, they are liable for a penalty of $1,000, which must be paid to the user of the animal. This penalty is in addition to any other civil or criminal penalties that may apply. Not only does this law provide financial compensation for the user of the animal, but it also enables the recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if legal action is required.

Importantly, RCW 49.60.370* clarifies that the Washington State Human Rights Commission has no duty to investigate incidents of negligent or malicious acts against a dog guide or service animal. This means that individuals seeking justice under this statute must take legal action themselves to pursue civil remedies.

THE BLACK-LETTER LAW — RCW 49.60.370

The relevant WLAD section states as follows:

RCW 49.60.370
Liability for killing or injuring dog guide or service animal—Penalty in addition to other remedies or penalties—Recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs—No duty to investigate.

(1) A person who negligently or maliciously kills or injures a dog guide or service animal is liable for a penalty of one thousand dollars, to be paid to the user of the animal. The penalty shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any other remedies or penalties, civil or criminal, provided by law.

(2) A user or owner of a dog guide or service animal, whose animal is negligently or maliciously injured or killed, is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in pursuing any civil remedy.

(3) The commission has no duty to investigate any negligent or malicious acts referred to under this section.

RCW 49.60.370* (hyperlinks added).

CONCLUSION

For employers, this law reinforces the need for a respectful and inclusive environment for employees who rely on service animals. It’s crucial that workplace policies support the safety and well-being of both employees and their service animals or guide dogs. In doing so, employers not only comply with the law but also foster a more inclusive and supportive workplace culture. By understanding and respecting the legal rights of employees with disabilities and their service animals and guide dogs, businesses can ensure they provide an environment that is safe, fair, and legally compliant.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Definition of Dog Guide (WLAD)

» Definition of Service Animal (WLAD)

» License Waiver for Dog Guide and Service Animals (WLAD)

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.

August 10, 2024November 21, 2024

License Waiver for Dog Guide and Service Animals (WLAD)

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60, is there a license waiver for dog guides and service animals? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

The WLAD is a potent statute enacted in 1949, and it covers a broad array of categories, including the following:

Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of civil rights.

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

(c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without discrimination, including discrimination against families with children;

(d) The right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination;

(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists … ; and

(g) The right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.

RCW 49.60.030(1) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added).

LICENSE WAIVER FOR DOG GUIDES AND SERVICE ANIMALS (WLAD)

The WLAD contains a license waiver provision for dog guides and service animals, as follows:

RCW 49.60.380*
License waiver for dog guide and service animals.

A county, city, or town shall honor a request by a blind person or hearing impaired person not to be charged a fee to license his or her dog guide, or a request by a physically disabled person not to be charged a fee to license his or her service animal.

RCW 49.60.380* (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Definition of Dog Guide (WLAD)

» Definition of Service Animal (WLAD)

» Liability for Killing or Injuring Dog Guide or Service Animal (WA State)

LEARN MORE

June 15, 2023October 21, 2024

Reasonable Accommodations: Duty To Communicate

Under Washington State employment laws concerning reasonable accommodations, what is the employee’s “duty to communicate“? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

DUTY TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS (EMPLOYERS)

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) “gives employers an affirmative duty to accommodate an employee‘s disability.” Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 12 Wn.App.2d 557, 586 (Div. 2 2020), review denied, 468 P.3d 616 (2020) (citing RCW 49.60.180(2); LaRose v. King County, 8 Wn.App.2d 90, 125, 437 P.3d 701 (2019)) (hyperlinks added).

DUTY TO COMMUNICATE (EMPLOYEES)

When an employer’s accommodation is ineffective, the employee’s corresponding duty to communicate mandates: “If the employee does not communicate to the employer that an accommodation was not effective, he or she cannot maintain a failure to accommodate claim.” Id. at 587 (internal citation omitted) (emphasis and hyperlinks added). The basis for this duty is that “an employer must be able to ascertain whether its efforts at accommodation have been effective, and therefore an employee has a duty to communicate to the employer whether the accommodation was effective.” Id. at 586-87 (citing Frisino v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 160 Wn.App. 765, 783, 249 P.3d 1044 (2011)) (hyperlinks added).

EXAMPLE: MACKEY v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC.

In Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., “Mackey began working at Home Depot[] … in 2006.” Id. at 564. “During her employment, Mackey suffered from depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and degenerative disc disease. She asked for accommodations related to all these conditions.” Id.

home depot’s DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE (EMPLOYER)

“Home Depot accommodated Mackey’s degenerative disc disease by allowing [her] … to have other employees do any required lifting.” Id. at 586.

mackey’s FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE CLAIM

“Home Depot [eventually] terminated Mackey’s employment after an investigation determined that she had been violating company policies regarding discounts on customer orders.” Id. at 563. “Mackey asserted claims for[, inter alia,] failure to reasonably accommodate her physical disability.” Id. “Mackey argue[d] that [Home Depot’s disability] … accommodation was unreasonable because it required her to seek out the help of other employees and tell them about her disability before completing the lifting tasks assigned to her.” Id.

mackey’s DUTY TO COMMUNICATE (EMPLOYEE)

The employer defended by asserting, “Mackey failed to notify Home Depot that the [disability] accommodation it provided to her was insufficient or unreasonable.” Id. at 586. The Court also noted: “Mackey admitted that she never complained to Home Depot that she did not have someone to lift for her or that the accommodation was not adequate.” Id. at 587.

THE COURT’S HOLDING

The Washington State Court of Appeals held, “[T]he trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on Mackey’s failure to reasonably accommodate claim because Mackey never notified Home Depot that the accommodation it provided was ineffective or unreasonable.” Id. at 564.

LEARN MORE

January 13, 2022October 21, 2024

Top 3 Employment Discrimination Laws

As an employment attorney in Washington State, I often litigate claims on behalf of employee-plaintiffs based on several common employment discrimination laws. Here are the top 3 employment discrimination laws that I litigate in Washington State . . .

(IMPORTANT: 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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

#3 — THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 (§ 1981)

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) is a federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981. A plaintiff cannot state a claim under Section 1981 unless he has (or would have) rights under the existing (or proposed) contract that he wishes ‘to make and enforce.’” See Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470, 479-80 (2006). And the employment-at-will relationship is a contract for Section 1981 purposes.

Section 1981 is also known as “Equal rights under the law” and it states as follows:

(a) STATEMENT OF EQUAL RIGHTS

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

(b) “MAKE AND ENFORCE CONTRACTS” DEFINED

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

42 U.S.C. § 1981.

#2 — TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter, “Title VII”) “makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex[;] … makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit[;] … and requires that employers reasonably accommodate applicants’ and employees’ sincerely held religious practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.” U.S. EEOC Website (emphasis added).

Two other federal anti-discrimination laws, inter alia, broaden the protected classes, as follows:

(1) Age Discrimination In Employment Act (ADEA) which protects people who are 40 or older from both discrimination on account of age and unlawful retaliation against a person “because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit”; and

(2) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that prohibits discrimination and unlawful retaliation against a qualified person with a disability. The ADA also “makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.” Further, the ADA requires that “employers reasonably accommodate the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.”

See id.

#1 — THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), it is an unfair practice, with very few exceptions, for an employer to refuse to hire any person, to discharge or bar any person from employment, or to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms and conditions of employment because of age (40+); sex (including pregnancy); marital status; sexual orientation (including gender identity); race; color; creed; national origin; citizenship or immigration status; honorably discharged veteran or military status; HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C status; the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability; and state employee or health care whistleblower status. See RCW 49.60.

It is also an unfair practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee, because the employee complained about job discrimination or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit. See id.

WLAD is a broad and powerful remedial statue that was originally enacted in 1949 as an employment discrimination law. See Fraternal Order of Eagles v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order, 148 Wn.2d 224, 237, 59 P.3d 655 (Wash. 2002) (internal citations omitted); Laws of 1949, ch. 183. Remarkably, Washington State enacted the WLAD 15 years before Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

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

August 1, 2021October 21, 2024

The Prima Facie Case: Reasonable Accommodations

Under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what is the prima facie case for failure to provide reasonable accommodations? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS (WA STATE)

AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE: Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) “gives employers an affirmative duty to accommodate an employee‘s disability.” Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 12 Wn.App.2d 557, 586 (Div. 2 2020), review denied, 468 P.3d 616 (2020) (citing RCW 49.60.180(2); LaRose v. King County, 8 Wn.App.2d 90, 125, 437 P.3d 701 (2019)) (hyperlinks added).

SCOPE: “A reasonable accommodation must allow the employee to work in the environment and perform the essential functions of her job without substantially limiting symptoms.” Id. (citing Frisino v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 160 Wn.App. 765, 777-78, 249 P.3d 1044 (2011)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

MULTIPLE METHODS OF ACCOMMODATION: “Where multiple potential methods of accommodation exist, the employer is entitled to select the appropriate method.” Id. (citing Frisino, 160 Wn.App. at 779).

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (WA STATE)

“An employee claiming his or her employer failed to accommodate a disability must prove that[:]

(1) the employee suffered from a disability,
(2) the employee was qualified to do the job at issue,
(3) the employee gave his or her employer notice of the disability, and
(4) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate that disability.

Id. (citing LaRose, 8 Wn.App.2d at 125-26) (paragraph formatting and emphasis and hyperlinks added).

When Personality Tests Become Discrimination: A Growing Risk in Washington Hiring

Why These Tests Raise Red Flags

Washington’s Broader Legal Standard

What Employers Should Be Doing (opinion)

What Employees Should Know

Conclusion

Read Our Related Articles

LEARN MORE

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE: DISABILITY-BASED HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT VIA CIRCUMSTANIAL EVIDENCE

SECOND ELEMENT (UNWELCOME)

THIRD ELEMENT (BECAUSE OF DISABILITY)

FOURTH ELEMENT (TERMS & CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT)

FIFTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO EMPLOYER)

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

What are the elements of Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in WA State?

answer:

Read More About This Topic

NEED HELP?

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

UNFAIR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS

[REFUSE TO HIRE]

[dISCHARGE OR BAR FROM EMPLOYMENT]

[DISCRIMINATE IN COMPENSATION OR IN OTHER TERMS/CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT]

[STATEMENTS, ADVERTISEMENTS, PUBLICATIONS, APPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT, INQUIRIES IN CONNECTION WITH PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYMENT]

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION

DEFINITIONS OF “SERVICE ANIMAL TRAINEE” AND “SERVICE ANIMAL TRAINER”

WLAD REMEDIES

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

need help?

THE WASHINGTON INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE ACT (“ACT”) AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS: DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED

THE COMPLAINT PROCESS

RIGHT OF PRIVATE ACTION — ADDITIONAL LEGAL THEORIES

REMEDIES

LEARN MORE

WLAD — LIABILITY FOR KILLING OR INJURING DOG GUIDE OR SERVICE ANIMAL

THE BLACK-LETTER LAW — RCW 49.60.370

CONCLUSION

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

LICENSE WAIVER FOR DOG GUIDES AND SERVICE ANIMALS (WLAD)

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

DUTY TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS (EMPLOYERS)

DUTY TO COMMUNICATE (EMPLOYEES)

EXAMPLE: MACKEY v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC.

home depot’s DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE (EMPLOYER)

mackey’s FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE CLAIM

mackey’s DUTY TO COMMUNICATE (EMPLOYEE)

THE COURT’S HOLDING

LEARN MORE

#3 — THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 (§ 1981)

#2 — TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

#1 — THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

LEARN MORE

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS (WA STATE)

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (WA STATE)

TAKE OUR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TEST (VIDEO):

READ MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC

LEARN MORE