FAQ: What are the elements of Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations 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
What are the elements of Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in WA 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. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)
Advertisement
DUTY TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS (EMPLOYERS)
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
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.
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
THE WASHINGTON STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Created by the Washington State Legislature in 1949, the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) is a key state agency tasked with both administering and enforcing the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). See Washington State Human Rights Commission Website, https://www.hum.wa.gov/about-us* (last visited August 21, 2024). Its “mission … is to eliminate and prevent discrimination in Washington State through the fair application of the law, efficient use of resources, and establishment of productive partnerships in the community.” Id.
WAC 162-16-250
Discrimination because of marital status.
(1) General rule. It is an unfair practice to discriminate against an employee or job applicant because of marital status. Examples of unfair practices include, but are not limited to:
(a) Refusing to hire a single or divorced applicant because of a presumption that “married persons are more stable.”
(b) Refusing to promote a married employee because of a presumption that he or she “will be less willing to work late and travel.”
WAC 162-16-250(1)* (hyperlinks and paragraph formatting added).
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE
There are exceptions to the general rule, as follows:
WAC 162-16-250
Discrimination because of marital status.
(a) If a bona fide occupational qualification applies (please see WAC 162-16-240*).
(b) If an employer is enforcing a documented conflict of interest policy limiting employment opportunities on the basis of marital status:
(i) Where one spouse would have the authority or practical power to supervise, appoint, remove, or discipline the other;
(ii) Where one spouse would be responsible for auditing the work of the other;
(iii) Where other circumstances exist which would place the spouses in a situation of actual or reasonably foreseeable conflict between the employer’s interest and their own; or
(iv) Where, in order to avoid the reality or appearance of improper influence or favor, or to protect its confidentiality, the employer must limit the employment of close relatives of policy level officers of customers, competitors, regulatory agencies, or others with whom the employer deals.
WAC 162-16-250(2)* (hyperlinks and paragraph formatting 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 WLAD] 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)*.
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 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.
Under the rules of logic, what does the term Petitio Principii mean as applied in the legal profession? 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*, an official governmental website, or a well-recognized organization. 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
Law and Logic: Petitio Principii in Employment Discrimination Litigation
The legal profession depends upon persuasive reasoning, but persuasion becomes problematic when an argument assumes its own conclusion. One of the oldest logical fallacies—petitio principii, or circular reasoning—appears more often in litigation than many attorneys realize, particularly in employment discrimination cases.
Although the phrase is commonly misused in casual conversation, its true meaning has significant implications for lawyers, judges, and juries alike.
What Is Petitio Principii?
Petitio principii occurs when an argument assumes the very fact it is attempting to prove. A simple example is:
“The witness is truthful because she is credible, and she is credible because she is truthful.”
The conclusion merely repeats itself in different language. No independent evidence supports the claim. In legal disputes, circular reasoning often hides beneath persuasive narratives or conclusory statements that sound evidentiary but are actually assumptions.
An Example: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)
“The employee was terminated because of discrimination because the termination itself was discriminatory.”
That statement sounds persuasive, but it provides no independent proof of discriminatory motive. The legal issue is not whether an adverse action occurred. The issue is why it occurred.
Circular Reasoning and the Burden-Shifting Framework
“The employer’s explanation is false because discrimination occurred, and discrimination occurred because the explanation is false.”
Without independent evidence, the reasoning becomes circular rather than analytical.
The same problem appears when litigants assume that procedural unfairness automatically proves unlawful bias, or when every workplace disagreement is retroactively characterized as discriminatory simply because litigation followed.
The Danger of “Inference Stacking”
Employment cases often rely on inference, which is entirely proper when grounded in evidence. But attorneys sometimes build one unsupported inference upon another.
For example:
• The employee received criticism; • Therefore management disliked the employee; • Therefore management was biased; • Therefore the termination was discriminatory.
Each conclusion depends upon the prior assumption rather than independent proof. That is not careful reasoning. It is speculation layered into narrative form.
“The company could not have discriminated because it maintains anti-discrimination policies.”
But a policy is not proof of compliance. Assuming lawful intent merely because policies exist can become circular as well. Likewise, arguing that a supervisor cannot be biased because the supervisor previously hired or promoted protected employees may oversimplify a far more fact-specific inquiry. Cf., Same Actor Inference Doctrine (my article supporting how this argument might be viable in some employment discrimination cases).
Distinguishing Inference from Circularity
Not every inference is improper. Legitimate discrimination claims often rely on:
• Comparator evidence; • Discriminatory remarks; • Statistical disparities; • Suspicious timing; or • Inconsistent explanations supported by other facts.
The distinction is simple:
• A valid inference moves from evidence to conclusion. • Circular reasoning treats the conclusion itself as evidence.
Why Logical Discipline Matters
Employment discrimination law occupies an important place in the justice system because it balances workplace accountability with fairness to both employees and employers.
When courts or attorneys rely on circular reasoning, weak claims may appear stronger than they are, while legitimate defenses—or legitimate claims—may receive inadequate analysis. For trial attorneys, recognizing petitio principii is therefore more than an academic exercise. It is part of effective advocacy and ethical legal reasoning.
The strongest employment cases are not built upon assumptions repeated persuasively. They are built upon evidence that independently supports the conclusion the advocate seeks to prove.
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.
In Washington State, how do employer severance/separation agreements typically limit an employee’s right to pursue claims of employment discrimination against the employer? 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
Severance Agreements and Employment Discrimination (WA State)
When a job ends suddenly, employers often move quickly to present a severance or separation agreement. These documents can look routine — even generous — especially when you’re under financial pressure. But in Washington State, severance agreements often require you to give up significant legal rights, including the ability to bring discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful‑termination claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD); bring associated WA State common‑law claims; and bring similar federal statutory claims against the employer.
Before you sign anything, it’s important to understand what you may be giving up — and what you might lose if you don’t sign.
What a Severance Agreement Actually Does
A severance agreement is not just a paycheck. It’s a binding contract typically drafted by the employer’s lawyers. In relation to claims of employment discrimination (and related claims), those contracts often contain a plurality of restrictive provisions requiring the employee‘s agreement, such as the following:
• Release the employer from all claims, whether you know about them or not
• Accept limits on future employment or communication
These agreements are designed to protect the company. They are not written with your interests in mind.
Why Signing Too Quickly Can Be Risky
You May Be Waiving Claims Worth Far More Than the Severance
If you were treated unfairly, pushed out after reporting misconduct, denied accommodations, or terminated shortly after taking protected leave (or after engaging in other protected activities), you might have legal claims with substantial value. WLAD and WA State common law allows recovery for, inter alia, lost wages, emotional harm, and attorney’s fees — often far exceeding the severance amount.
• Timing matters — terminations following medical leave or accommodation requests are often scrutinized
These are just a sample of potentially unrealized issues–not obvious at first glance–that a lawyer can help you identify.
Once You Sign, You MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO Go Back
Most releases are final. Even if new facts emerge or you later realize you had a strong case, the agreement might prevent you from pursuing it.
The Other Side of the Decision: What If You Don’t Sign?
It’s important to acknowledge the real trade‑off. If you decline the severance and pursue discrimination or retaliation claims instead, there is always a possibility that:
• Your claims don’t succeed
• The evidence isn’t strong enough
• The case settles for less than the severance — or not at all
If that happens, the severance offer is typically gone for good. Employers rarely re‑extend the same deal once it’s rejected. This is why understanding the strength of your claims — and the fairness of the offer — before the deadline to sign can be essential before making a decision.
Why Promptly Talking to an Attorney First Makes a Difference
You Get a Clear Picture of Your Rights
An employment lawyer can help you evaluate whether the severance amount is reasonable compared to the potential value of your employment-discrimination claims and can flag problematic or overly broad terms.
You May Be Able to Negotiate Better Terms
Employees who seek legal advice/representation might be able to secure:
• Higher severance payments
• More favorable confidentiality or non‑disparagement language
• Neutral references
• Narrower releases
• Extended benefits
Employers often anticipate negotiation — and they might take represented employees more seriously.
You Protect Your Future Employment Options
Some agreements include non‑compete or non‑solicitation clauses that can affect your next job. A lawyer may be able to help you avoid signing something that limits your career.
You May Not Have to Decide on the Spot
Even if your employer sets a short deadline to sign the agreement, you might be able request more time. There may also be other related protections if both (1) the release includes a waiver of U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) age-discrimination claims; and (2) the employee is 40 or older. Talk to an attorney first to learn more.
Conclusion
Signing a severance agreement is a decision that deserves careful thought. These contracts often require employees to give up important legal claims, while declining them can mean losing compensation that won’t be offered again. Because both choices carry real consequences, getting advice from an employment attorney before you commit can help you understand your options and choose the path that best protects your related rights.
IMPORTANT: The potential outcomes discussed herein are not guaranteed and the outcome of any particular case may vary significantly and unexpectedly from the same; consult with an attorney first both to discuss the specific details of your case and to learn more.
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.
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.
