Discrimination Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

March 19, 2026April 25, 2026

The Perils of Plaintiff Dishonesty or Inaccuracy During Litigation

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

Employment discrimination laws provide an essential avenue for workers to challenge unfair treatment based on protected characteristics such as age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or disability. While these laws are powerful, their effectiveness depends on one critical factor: the honesty of the person bringing the claim. For both attorneys and potential plaintiffs, understanding the risks of dishonesty is key to preserving a viable case.

1. Credibility Drives Outcomes

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.

–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.

January 8, 2026January 8, 2026

Harmful Employment-Law Idioms: “Playing the Race Card”

Harmful Employment-Law Idioms: "Playing the Race Card"

Why is the idiom “playing the race card” harmful for employment-discrimination victims? Here’s my point of view.

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:

» Unequal pay or benefits

» Disparate impact

» Disparate treatment

» Harassment or hostile work environment

» Wrongful termination or demotion

» Retaliation for reporting discrimination

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:

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

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

LEARN MORE

–gw

January 1, 2026January 1, 2026

Employment Discrimination Based Upon Cannabis Use (WA State)

Under Washington State law, may employers discrimination against job candidates based on cannabis use? Here’s my point of view.

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

–gw

November 21, 2025

Constructive Discharge: Discrete & Non-Discrete Acts

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.)

Advertisement

Constructive Discharge: Discrete & Non-Discrete Acts

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.

-gw

November 13, 2025November 13, 2025

What are the elements of Disparate Treatment in WA State?

Advertisement

FAQ: What are the elements of Disparate Treatment in WA State?

answer:

The elements of a Disparate Treatment claim in WA State require an employee-plaintiff to show:

a) Plaintiff is a member of one or more protected classes;

b) Plaintiff suffered a tangible adverse employment action;

c) The action occurred under circumstances that raise a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination; and

d) Plaintiff was doing satisfactory work.

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)*.

Read Our Related Articles

» Definition of Prima Facie Case*

» Disparate Treatment: A Closer Look*

» Disparate Treatment: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification*

» Disparate Treatment vs. Disparate Impact Discrimination*

» Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment*

» Disparate Treatment: Pretext by Comparison

» McDonnell Douglas Framework (Step 1): The Prima Facie Case*

» Prima Facie Case: The Replacement Element*

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment via Direct Evidence

» Top 3 Reasons Disparate Treatment Claims Fail

» WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

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

NEED HELP?

If you need legal assistance, 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.

November 6, 2025November 6, 2025

Can you prove employment discrimination without direct evidence?

Advertisement

Can you prove employment discrimination without direct evidence?

answer:

Yes, plaintiffs can prove employment discrimination without direct evidence. In Washington State, “[a] plaintiff can establish a prima facie case [of employment discrimination] by either[:]

[1.] offering direct evidence of an employer‘s discriminatory intent, or …

[2.] satisfying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test that gives rise to an inference of discrimination.

Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC, 178 Wn.App 734, 743-44 (Div. 2 2013) (citing Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483, 491, 859 P.2d 26, 865 P.2d 507 (1993)) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added).

Accordingly, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test provides an alternative way for plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination using indirect, circumstantial evidence instead of direct evidence.

The McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework

The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework* has three steps:

STEP 1*: The “plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, which creates a presumption of discrimination.” Scrivener v. Clark College*, 181 Wn.2d 439, 446, 334 P.3d 541, (2014) (citing Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 149-50; Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483, 490, 859 P.2d 26, 865 P.2d 507 (1993)) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis & hyperlink added).

STEP 2*: “[T]he burden shifts to the defendant, who must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason* for the adverse employment action.” Mikkelsen v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Kittitas County*, 189 Wn.2d 516, 527 (Wash. 2017) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis & hyperlink added).

STEP 3*: “[I]f the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence showing that the defendant’s alleged nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action was a pretext*.” Id.* (internal citations omitted) (emphasis & hyperlink added).

Read Our Related Articles

»Employment Law 101: Definition of Circumstantial Evidence (WA State)

»McDonnell Douglas Framework (Step 1): The Prima Facie Case*

»McDonnell Douglas Framework (Step 2): The Employer’s Burden*

»McDonnell Douglas Framework (Step 3): Proving Pretext*

»Proving Discrimination: The Direct-Evidence Method

»The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*

»The Pretext Element: Self-Evaluations*

»The Pretext Element: Six Limitations*

»The Pretext Element: Two Methods of Proof*

»Using Circumstantial Evidence to Prove Employment Discrimination

*NOTE: This link will take you to our Williams Law Group Blog, an external website.

NEED HELP?

September 11, 2025September 11, 2025

WSHRC: Breach of Conciliated Agreement

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), how may the Washington State Human Rights Commission address the breach of a conciliated agreement? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Breach of Conciliated Agreement Under Washington Law

When discrimination complaints are resolved through Washington’s administrative process, the parties may enter into a conciliated agreement approved by the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC). These agreements are designed to eliminate unlawful practices under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60*. But what happens if one party fails to honor the terms of that agreement?

WAC 162-08-109* addresses this issue by outlining the tools available to the Commission’s executive director when a conciliation agreement is breached; it states as follows:

WAC 162-08-109
Breach of conciliated agreement.

If an agreement and order for the elimination of an unfair practice made under RCW 49.60.240* is breached, the executive director may take action appropriate in the circumstances, including one or more of the following:

(1) Specific enforcement. Bringing an action in superior or district court for specific enforcement of the agreement, or for damages pursuant to the conciliation agreement;

(2) Setting aside. Recommending to the commissioners that the agreement and order be set aside, in whole or in part, and that the case be returned to the staff for renewed conference, conciliation and persuasion, or to be referred to commission counsel for hearing; or

(3) Report to prosecuting attorney. Reporting the violation to the appropriate prosecuting attorney for prosecution under RCW 49.60.310*.

WAC 162-08-109* (emphasis and paragraph formatting added).

Options Available to the Commission

Thus, if a party violates the agreement, the executive director may choose one or more of the following steps, depending on the circumstances:

1. Specific Enforcement in Court

The Commission may file an action in superior or district court to enforce the agreement. This could mean seeking a court order that compels compliance with the original terms, or pursuing damages that were provided for in the agreement.

2. Setting Aside the Agreement

The executive director may recommend that the Commissioners void the agreement, in whole or in part. If this occurs, the case can be reopened for further conciliation efforts, or it may be referred to the Commission’s legal counsel for a formal hearing.

3. Referral for Prosecution

In certain cases, the violation may be referred to the appropriate prosecuting attorney for enforcement under RCW 49.60.310*, which provides for criminal penalties in connection with violations of the WLAD.

Why This Rule Matters

For individuals, this rule ensures that entering into a conciliation agreement is not the end of the road—there is accountability if the other party fails to follow through. For attorneys, it highlights the importance of drafting and reviewing conciliation agreements carefully, since breach can lead to renewed litigation, enforcement actions, or even criminal referral.

In short, WAC 162-08-109* underscores that compliance with conciliation agreements is not optional. The Human Rights Commission has meaningful enforcement mechanisms to protect both the integrity of the process and the rights of the parties involved.

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

» Remedies for Breach of Conciliation Agreements*

» WSHRC: Objective of Conciliation

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

September 3, 2025October 2, 2025

Unlawful Retaliation via Hostile Work Environment (9th Circuit)

Unlawful Retaliation via Hostile Work Environment

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, may a hostile work environment form the basis for unlawful retaliation when pursuing claims in the 9th Circuit? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Title VII (9th Circuit): Hostile Work Environment (Harassment) May Form the Basis for Retaliation Claims

The Ninth Circuit* recognizes that a “hostile work environment may be the basis for a retaliation claim under Title VII” since “[h]arassment . . . is the paradigm of ‘adverse treatment that is based on retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter the charging party or others from engaging in protected activity.’” Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1244-45 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting EEOC Compliance Manual ¶ 8008) (hyperlinks added). Under either theory, “[h]arassment is actionable only if it is ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.’” Id. at 1245 (quoting Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)).

Read our related articles

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

» What are the elements of Hostile Work Environment in WA State?

» What are the elements of Unlawful Retaliation in WA State?

need help?

-gw

July 4, 2025September 11, 2025

WSHRC: Objective of Conciliation

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what does the term “conciliation” mean when pursuing complaints through the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”)? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Understanding WAC 162-08-102: The Objective of Conciliation in Washington State Discrimination Law

When an allegation of discrimination arises under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60*, one of the first tools employed by the Washington State Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) is conciliation. This process—grounded in WAC 162-08-102*—offers both legal professionals and the public insight into how the state prioritizes resolution of disputes in a way that not only halts discriminatory practices but also remedies their lingering effects.

The Regulatory Framework

The relevant Washington State Administrative Code* (“WAC”) states as follows:

WAC 162-08-102
Objective of conciliation.

The commission‘s staff in its endeavors to eliminate an unfair practice by conference, conciliation and persuasion under RCW 49.60.250* shall be guided by the purposes of the law against discrimination and by the policies and objectives of the commission, particularly as expressed in WAC 162-08-061*, 162-08-062* and 162-08-298*. Elimination of an unfair practice includes elimination of the effects of the unfair practice, as well as assurance of the discontinuance of the unfair practice.

WAC 162-08-102* (first & second hyperlinks added). This administrative regulation establishes that conciliation is not simply about stopping an unfair practice; it is about eliminating both the discriminatory conduct and its consequences. The regulation instructs the Commission’s staff to approach conciliation guided by:

• The purposes of the WLAD (ensuring equal opportunity and freedom from discrimination).

• The policies and objectives of the Commission, especially those articulated in related provisions:

– WAC 162-08-061* (Relationship of commission to complainant),

– WAC 162-08-062* (Concurrent remedies–Other remedies), and

– WAC 162-08-298* (Remedies).

By linking WAC 162-08-102* to these provisions, the regulation underscores that conciliation is not a mere formality—it is a central mechanism for enforcing civil rights protections in Washington.

What Conciliation Means in Practice

For attorneys representing clients, understanding the scope of conciliation is critical. The process typically involves:

1. Conference and Persuasion – Informal discussions between the Commission, complainant, and respondent to explore resolution.

2. Conciliation Agreements – Negotiated commitments by respondents to both cease the discriminatory conduct and remedy its effects (for example, reinstatement, back pay, or policy changes).

3. Forward-Looking Protections – Ensuring that the respondent adopts practices to prevent recurrence, often through training, monitoring, or systemic reforms.

Unlike private settlement agreements, Commission conciliation carries a public interest dimension: it is designed not just to resolve disputes between parties, but to advance the state’s broader mandate of eradicating discrimination.

Why the Distinction Matters

The language of WAC 162-08-102* makes clear that a successful conciliation must address two distinct goals:

• Stopping the discriminatory practice itself.

• Eliminating its ripple effects. For example, in an employment discrimination case, this could include back wages, seniority adjustments, or workplace reforms that restore the complainant’s position and opportunities.

For practitioners, this means conciliation is not just about negotiating a quick settlement—it is about ensuring structural and remedial relief consistent with the Commission’s objectives.

Implications for Legal Professionals and the Public

For Attorneys: Awareness of conciliation’s dual focus equips counsel to advise clients realistically about potential remedies and obligations. Respondents must be prepared to do more than simply “stop” a practice—they must also correct its consequences.

For the Public: The Commission’s emphasis on conciliation reflects a commitment to fairness. Individuals subjected to discrimination should know that the process aims not only to halt misconduct but also to restore their rights and opportunities.

Conclusion

WAC 162-08-102 reinforces that conciliation is more than compromise—it is corrective justice. By requiring elimination of both the practice and its effects, Washington’s regulatory framework ensures that conciliation serves as a meaningful tool in advancing the WLAD’s mission: a state free from discrimination.

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

» Remedies for Breach of Conciliation Agreements*

» The Intersection of WSHRC and EEOC*

» WA State Human Rights Commission Complaints

» WA State Human Rights Commission: Damages for Humiliation and Suffering*

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

» WSHRC: Breach of Conciliated Agreement

» WSHRC: From Complaint to Conclusion

» WSHRC: Organization and Operations

» WSHRC: Procedure When None Is Specified

» WSHRC: Relationship of Commission to Complainant

» WSHRC: Withdrawal of Complaint

LEARN MORE

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

–gw