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.
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.
• 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.
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.
Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), what is the definition of “color” when pursing claims of employment discrimination? 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
Defining “Color” Under Washington Law
Within the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, the term “color” is recognized as a distinct protected characteristic. Although often discussed alongside race, “color” has its own legal meaning and plays an important role in identifying and addressing discriminatory conduct. In general terms, “color” refers to the pigmentation, complexion, or skin tone of an individual.
Distinction Between Color and Race
While race and color are closely related, they are not interchangeable under the law. Race typically refers to broader social or ethnic classifications, whereas color focuses specifically on the shade or tone of a person’s skin. This distinction is significant because discrimination can occur between individuals of the same race based on differences in complexion.
For example, unfavorable treatment of a darker-skinned individual compared to a lighter-skinned individual of the same racial background may constitute unlawful discrimination based on color. Recognizing this nuance allows the law to address more subtle forms of bias that might otherwise go unremedied.
How Color Discrimination Appears in Practice
Color discrimination can arise in many of the same contexts covered by the WLAD, including employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit/insurance transactions. In the workplace, it may involve hiring decisions, promotions, pay disparities, or workplace harassment tied to an individual’s skin tone. In housing, it could manifest as differential treatment in renting or selling property based on complexion.
Importantly, color discrimination is not limited to overt or explicit actions. It may also include patterns of behavior, implicit bias, or policies that disproportionately affect individuals with certain skin tones. As a result, both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence may be relevant in evaluating such claims.
Legal Framework and Enforcement
Claims of discrimination based on color are evaluated under the same general framework as other protected classes under the WLAD. A complainant must typically show that they were treated differently in a context covered by the statute and that their color was a motivating factor in that treatment.
The Washington State Human Rights Commission investigates such claims, assessing whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination. If a violation is established, remedies may include corrective action, damages, policy changes, or other relief designed to address the harm and prevent future misconduct.
Conclusion
Recognizing “color” as an independent protected characteristic under the WLAD, RCW 49.60, strengthens the reach of Washington’s anti-discrimination law. It ensures that individuals are protected not only from broad racial bias but also from unequal treatment based on differences in skin tone—whether across or within racial groups.
For the public, this underscores that the law addresses subtle as well as overt forms of discrimination. For legal practitioners, it highlights the need to evaluate claims with precision, paying close attention to how complexion-based bias may factor into a given set of facts. By expressly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of color, Washington law provides a more complete framework for identifying, addressing, and preventing inequity in everyday life.
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.
What are the perils of plaintiff dishonesty or inaccuracy during employment-discrimination litigation? 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
Perils of Plaintiff Dishonesty or Inaccuracy During Employment-Discrimination Litigation
Many employment disputes ultimately turn on whose version of events is believed. Judges and juries routinely weigh competing accounts from employees and employers. If a plaintiff is caught exaggerating or misstating even part of their story, it can taint their entire testimony. Once credibility is compromised, even strong evidence may carry less weight.
2. False Statements Can Trigger Legal Penalties
Providing inaccurate information in a legal proceeding is more than a tactical error—it can have serious consequences. Statements made under oath must be truthful, and knowingly false testimony can expose a plaintiff to perjury claims. Courts may also impose sanctions, dismiss claims, or require payment of the opposing party’s legal fees if misconduct is found.
3. Dishonesty Weakens the Broader System
When individuals misrepresent facts in discrimination cases, the damage extends beyond a single lawsuit. Such conduct can reinforce skepticism toward future claims and make it harder for others with legitimate grievances to be taken seriously. Maintaining honesty helps preserve the credibility of employment protections as a whole.
4. Attorney-Client Relationships Depend on Transparency
Lawyers are ethically prohibited from knowingly presenting false information. If a client withholds material facts or insists on advancing a false narrative, the attorney may have no choice but to withdraw. Open and truthful communication allows counsel to properly evaluate claims, anticipate defenses, and provide effective representation.
5. The Facts Alone Are Often Enough
There is a common but mistaken belief that embellishment strengthens a claim. In reality, consistent and accurate testimony is far more persuasive. Courts recognize that workplace disputes are complex, and plaintiffs are not expected to have perfect recollection. A candid account—supported by documents, communications, and witness testimony—can be highly compelling.
6. Discovery Will Expose Inconsistencies
Modern litigation involves detailed evidence gathering, including emails, personnel files, and sworn depositions. Inconsistencies between a plaintiff’s statements and the documentary record are often uncovered during this process. Once exposed, even small inaccuracies can become central issues that overshadow the underlying claim.
Conclusion
At its core, a successful employment discrimination claim depends on trust—trust in the facts presented and in the person presenting them. Being truthful does more than satisfy a legal obligation; it strengthens the overall case and preserves its legitimacy under scrutiny. When plaintiffs remain accurate and forthcoming, they give decision-makers a solid foundation on which to evaluate their claims. By contrast, any deviation from the truth can quickly shift attention away from the alleged wrongdoing and onto the plaintiff’s credibility, often with damaging results. For both clients and attorneys, a commitment to honesty is not optional—it is fundamental to achieving a fair and just outcome.
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.
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],
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).
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.
Why is the idiom “playing the race card” harmful for employment-discrimination victims? 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
Why “Playing the Race Card” Is a Harmful Idiom—and Shouldn’t Deter Employees in Washington State from Seeking Justice
In today’s workplaces, discussions about race and discrimination remain highly sensitive—and sometimes even controversial. Unfortunately, one phrase often used to undermine these conversations is the idiom “playing the race card.” Though it may seem like a casual expression, this phrase carries derogatory connotations and can have a chilling effect on individuals experiencing racial discrimination.
For employees in Washington State facing unfair treatment based on race, it’s essential to understand that seeking legal help is not only your right—it can be a necessary step in protecting yourself and improving workplace equity for everyone.
The Problem with “Playing the Race Card”
At its core, the idiom “playing the race card” implies that someone is opportunistically or manipulatively invoking their race to gain an advantage or excuse poor behavior. This notion casts doubt on the legitimacy of racial discrimination claims and frames the accuser as disingenuous.
This phrase is problematic for several reasons:
1. It Delegitimizes Genuine Concerns: Using this idiom suggests that raising concerns about racism is inherently suspect or dishonest. This mindset undermines the very real, and often well-documented, existence of racial bias in employment decisions such as hiring, promotions, compensation, and termination.
2. It Discourages Reporting: When people fear being accused of “playing the race card,” they may hesitate to come forward with valid claims. This reluctance allows discriminatory practices to persist unchecked.
3. It Perpetuates Systemic Inequality: Framing race-based complaints as exaggerated or attention-seeking minimizes the systemic nature of racism and prevents meaningful dialogue or change.
Know Your Rights in Washington State
Washington State has some of the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the country. Under both state and federal law, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee or job applicant based on certain protected classes including, but not limited to, race.
If you believe that your employer has treated you unfairly because of your race, you have the right to file a complaint and pursue legal recourse. This may include:
The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) provides legal protection for workers and allows victims to seek remedies such as reinstatement, back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, and attorney’s fees.
Why Speaking to an Employment Attorney Matters
Racial discrimination in the workplace is not always blatant. It can take subtle forms—like being passed over for promotions, consistently receiving worse assignments, or enduring offhand remarks that create a hostile environment. An experienced employment attorney can help assess your situation, gather evidence, and advise you on the best path forward.
Crucially, consulting a lawyer sends a clear message: you are not “playing” at anything—you are asserting your legal rights under the law.
Moving Beyond the Stigma
Challenging racial bias isn’t easy, and it often comes with emotional and professional risks. But phrases like “playing the race card” should not be allowed to shame or silence those who have the courage to speak out.
If you’re experiencing discrimination in your workplace, know that your concerns are valid. You don’t have to tolerate unfair treatment, and you’re not alone. Protect your rights. Seek legal guidance. And remember: justice begins with the decision to stand up and be heard.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
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.
Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what are the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”) regulations concerning the reconsideration of findings? 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 Agencies Get a Second Look: Understanding WAC 162-08-101
Administrative agencies make decisions every day that affect real people—patrons, guests, employees, employers, landlords, tenants, and organizations across Washington State. But what happens when an agency discovers that a decision may be based on a mistake?
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 162-08-101*, titled “Reconsideration of findings,” provides a concise but important answer:
“The commission may reconsider and correct any finding in which errors affecting the result are brought to its attention.”
Id. (emphasis added). Though brief, this provision plays a significant role in ensuring fairness, accuracy, and trust in administrative decision-making by the Washington State Human Rights Commission.
What Is WAC 162-08-101 About?
At its core, WAC 162-08-101* gives the Commission the authority to revisit its own findings when a meaningful error is identified—and when that error could have changed the outcome. This reflects a practical acknowledgment: even careful investigations and decisions can sometimes be affected by mistakes, and there should be a mechanism to fix them.
Key Elements of the Rule
The essential components of the rule follow:
1. “The commission may reconsider”
The word “may” is important. Reconsideration is discretionary, not automatic. The Commission is permitted—but not required—to revisit a finding once an error is raised.
For practitioners, this signals that reconsideration is a request, not a right, and should be supported with clear reasoning and evidence.
2. “and correct any finding”
The focus here is on correction, not punishment or reversal for its own sake. If an error is confirmed, the Commission has the authority to fix the finding to reflect what the result should have been without the mistake.
This promotes administrative efficiency by allowing the agency to self-correct rather than forcing parties into prolonged appeals or litigation.
3. “in which errors affecting the result are brought to its attention”
Not all errors qualify. The rule applies only when:
• An error exists, and
• The error affects the outcome, not merely a minor detail.
For example:
• A typo in a date that has no impact on the analysis likely would not qualify.
• A misinterpretation of evidence, a misapplied legal standard, or omitted key facts that influenced the conclusion likely would.
The burden is on the party raising the issue to clearly explain why the error matters.
KEY IMPLICATIONS
For the General Public
If you are involved in a discrimination complaint or investigation, WAC 162-08-101* offers reassurance that the process is not rigidly final in the face of genuine mistakes. It reflects a commitment to fairness over formality.
For Legal Professionals
For attorneys, advocates, and compliance officers, this provision creates a strategic opportunity:
• It may allow for correction without formal appeal.
• It encourages early identification and documentation of substantive errors.
• It reinforces the importance of precision in administrative records and findings.
What This Rule Does Not Do
Equally important are its limits:
• It does not guarantee reconsideration.
• It does not apply to disagreements over judgment or credibility unless tied to a demonstrable error.
• It does not replace judicial review or statutory appeal rights.
In other words, WAC 162-08-101* is a narrow corrective tool, not a second bite at the apple.
In Summary
WAC 162-08-101* may be only a single sentence long, but it embodies an important principle of administrative justice: accuracy matters, and agencies should be able to correct meaningful mistakes.
For the public, it builds confidence in the system. For legal professionals, it provides a valuable—if carefully constrained—procedural safeguard. In a system built on fairness, the ability to reconsider when it truly counts is not a weakness; it’s a strength.
RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
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.
Under Washington State law, may employers discrimination against job candidates based on cannabis use? 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.
Washington’s Cannabis Hiring Law: What Employers and Applicants Need to Know
Washington State has taken a distinctive step in aligning employment practices with the legalization of cannabis. RCW 49.44.240*, effective January 1, 2024, limits how employers may use cannabis-related information in initial hiring decisions—while preserving important safety and federal-law exceptions. (NOTE: For purposes of RCW 49.44.240, “‘cannabis’ has the meaning provided in RCW 69.50.101*.”)
The Core Rule
At its heart, the statute makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire someone based solely on either of two things:
1. the applicant’s lawful, off-duty cannabis use away from the workplace; or
2. a preemployment drug test that detects “nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites in their hair, blood, urine, or other bodily fluids.”
See RCW 49.44.240* (emphasis added). This distinction matters. Nonpsychoactive metabolites can remain in the body long after any intoxicating effects have worn off. The law recognizes that such results say little about an applicant’s current impairment or fitness for work.
Importantly, the protection applies only to initial hiring. The statute does not address discipline or termination of current employees.
What the Law Does Not Do
RCW 49.44.240* is not a blanket ban on drug testing, nor does it require employers to tolerate impairment at work.
Employers may still:
• Use scientifically valid drug tests that do not screen for nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites (for example, tests designed to detect recent impairment rather than past use);
• Enforce drug- and alcohol-free workplace policies, especially where required by federal law or regulation;
• Conduct post-accident testing or testing based on reasonable suspicion of impairment; and
• Test for controlled substances other than cannabis as permitted by law.
The statute also expressly does not override state or federal laws that mandate testing as a condition of employment, licensing, federal funding, or federal contracts. In addition, employers may require broad-spectrum drug testing through third parties, so long as cannabis results are withheld from the employer and not used in hiring decisions.
Who Is Excluded
The law includes a detailed list of positions to which these protections do not apply. These include roles that implicate public safety, federal oversight, or heightened risk, such as:
(a) A position requiring a federal government background investigation or security clearance;
(b) A position with a general authority Washington law enforcement agency as defined in RCW 10.93.020*;
(c) A position with a fire department, fire protection district, or regional fire protection service authority;
(d) A position as a first responder not included under (b) or (c) of this subsection, including a dispatcher position with a public or private 911 emergency communications system or a position responsible for the provision of emergency medical services;
(e) A position as a corrections officer with a jail, detention facility, or the department of corrections, including any position directly responsible for the custody, safety, and security of persons confined in those facilities;
(f) A position in the airline or aerospace industries; or
(g) A safety sensitive position for which impairment while working presents a substantial risk of death. Such safety sensitive positions must be identified by the employer prior to the applicant’s application for employment.
RCW 49.44.240* (emphasis added). For these jobs, employers may continue to consider cannabis test results in preemployment screening.
Implications
For applicants, RCW 49.44.240* provides reassurance that lawful, off-duty cannabis use—by itself—should not bar access to many jobs in Washington. For employers, the statute requires a careful review of hiring policies, drug-testing methods, and job classifications to ensure compliance.
The takeaway is not that cannabis is irrelevant in the workplace, but that Washington law draws a clear line between past, lawful use and on-the-job safety and impairment. Navigating that line thoughtfully is now a key part of lawful hiring in the state.
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.
Under Washington State law, may a constructive discharge be based on discrete and/or non-discrete acts? 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.)
Constructive discharge occurs when an employer deliberately creates working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the shoes of the employee would feel compelled to resign.
A constructive discharge can be based on a discrete act (which can be discriminatory or retaliatory), and/or non-discrete acts, such as a hostile work environment. Draper v. Coeur Rochester, Inc., 147 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Pennsylvania State Police v. Suder, 542 U.S. 129, 149 (2004) (a hostile-work environment claim is a “lesser included component” of the “graver claim of hostile-environment constructive discharge”).
Conclusion
Under Washington State law, a constructive discharge may be based on discrete and/or non-discrete acts.
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.
FAQ: What are the elements of Disparate Treatment in WA State?
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
FAQ: What are the elements of Disparate Treatment in WA State?
See Marin v. King County*, 194 Wn.App. 795, 808-09 (Wash.App. Div. 1 2016), review denied, 186 Wash.2d 1028, 385 P.3d 124 (Table) (Wash. 2016).
WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD) — DISPARATE TREATMENT — Generally
Under the WLAD, disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that “occurs when an employer treats some people less favorably than others because of race, color, religion, sex, [disability], [age], or other protected status.” Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company*, LLC, 178 Wn.App. 734, 743 (Div. 2 2013) (citing Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co., 162 Wn.2d 340, 354 n. 7, 172 P.3d 688 (2007)) (hyperlinks added).
THE “ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION” ELEMENT
Adverse employment action “means ‘a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.'” Id.* at 808 (citing Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998)).
THE “REASONABLE INFERENCE OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION” ELEMENT
Employment-discrimination plaintiffs often establish this element by using similarly situated, nonprotected co-workers for comparison. Such “[s]imilarly situated employees must have the same supervisor, be subject to the same standards, and have engaged in the same conduct.” Id.* at 810 (citing Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wn.App. 454, 475 n.16, 98 P.3d 827 (2004); see also Clark v. Runyon, 218 F.3d 915, 918 (8th Cir. 2000)).
ELEMENTS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE But VARY BASED ON RELEVANT FACTS
“The elements of a prima facie case for disparate treatment based on protected status are not absolute but vary based on the relevant facts.” Marin*, 194 Wn.App. at 808 (citing Grimwood v. Univ. of Puget Sound, Inc., 110 Wn.2d 355, 362-63, 753 P.2d 517 (1988)).
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)*.
Under Washington State laws, what are “protected classes” within the context of employment discrimination? 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
INTRODUCTION: PROTECTED CLASSES (WA STATE)
Washington State has comprehensive employment-discrimination laws to shield workers from unjust treatment rooted in specific attributes. An integral facet of these legal provisions is the acknowledgment of “protected classes.” This article will enumerate the protected classes within the employment-rights framework of the Washington Law Against Discrimination.
I. The Washington Law Against Discrimination: EMPLOYMENT
The Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”) is a potent statute enacted in 1949, and it covers a broad array of categories including, but not limited to employment, as follows:
Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of civil rights.
(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;
…
RCW 49.60.030(1)(a) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added). The WLAD protects, inter alia, employees from the unfair practices of employers.
II. Unfair Practices of Employers: generally
Under the WLAD, certain employers are prohibited from engaging in specific unfair practices in employment. The relevant law states as follows:
(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.
[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.
III. unfair practices of employers: filing or participating in a disrimination complaint (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.
IV. Defining Protected Classes
Protected classes encompass groups of individuals shielded from discrimination under governmental statutes. Washington State explicitly delineates these classes under the WLAD, recognizing various categories within, inter alia, the realm of employment, including the following:
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).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the exploration of protected classes within Washington State’s employment discrimination laws highlights the state’s commitment to fostering a workplace environment rooted in equality and fairness. The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), a robust statute enacted in 1949, serves as a powerful safeguard against unjust treatment based on specific attributes.
In essence, the WLAD stands as a cornerstone in Washington State’s pursuit of equal opportunities, reinforcing the principles of fairness, justice, and non-discrimination in employment. As we navigate the complexities of the modern workplace, understanding and upholding the rights of protected classes are crucial steps towards creating a truly inclusive and equitable work environment in the Evergreen State.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
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.
