Discrimination Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

March 30, 2023October 21, 2024

The After-Acquired Evidence Doctrine

Under Washington State law, what is the “after-acquired evidence doctrine” (hereinafter, “after-acquired evidence doctrine” or “Doctrine”) when applied to employment-discrimination law cases? 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 AFTER-ACQUIRED EVIDENCE DOCTRINE

In my plaintiff’s-side, employment-discrimination law practice, clients must occasionally address the after-acquired evidence doctrine. “The ‘after-acquired evidence’ doctrine precludes or limits an employee from receiving remedies for wrongful discharge if the employer later ‘discovers’ evidence of wrongdoing that would have led to the employee‘s termination had the employer known of the misconduct.” Lodis v. Corbis Holdings, Inc., 192 Wash.App. 30, 60, 366 P.3d 1246 (Wash. app. 2015), review denied, 185 Wash.2d 1038, 377 P.3d 744(Table) (Wash. 2016) (citing Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352, 360-63, 115 S.Ct. 879, 130 L.Ed.2d 852 (1995)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Under the Doctrine, “[a]n employer can avoid back pay and other remedies by coming forward with after-acquired evidence of an employee‘s misconduct, but only if it can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the wrongdoing was of such severity that the employee in fact would have been terminated on those grounds alone if the employer had known of it at the time of the discharge.” Id. (citing McKennon, 513 U.S. at 362-63) (emphasis added); accord Janson v. N. Valley Hosp., 93 Wn.App. 892, 971 P.2d 67 (1999) (“adopting after-acquired evidence defense as articulated in McKennon“)).

CONCLUSION

If an employer discovers misconduct by a plaintiff-employee, then the after-acquired evidence doctrine can reduce that plaintiff’s lost-wage damages. Specifically, “An employer can reduce back pay damages and preclude front pay damages by demonstrating it would have terminated the employee if it had known of the employee’s misconduct at the time.” 6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 330.00 (7th ed.) (citing Lodis v. Corbis Holdings, Inc., 192 Wn.App. 30, 60, 366 P.3d 1246 (2015)).

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.

March 16, 2023October 21, 2024

Reasonable Inference of Discrimination and Similarly Situated Employees

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, how does a plaintiff establish similarly situated employees for purposes of raising a reasonable inference of discrimination? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION: DISPARATE TREATMENT

Disparate treatment is a legal theory that occurs “when an employer treats some people less favorably than others” because of membership in a protected class. See Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company*, 178 Wn.App. 734, 753-54, 315 P.3d 610 (Wash.App.Div. 2 2013). “To esablish a prima facie* disparate treatment case, a plaintiff must show that his employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of their protected status.” Id. (citing Johnson v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health servs., 80 Wn.App. 212, 226, 907 P.2d 1223 (1996)) (hyperlink added).

There are various formulations for the prima facie case of disparate treatment. In Washington State, “[t]he elements of a prima facie case for disparate treatment based on protected status are not absolute but vary based on the relevant facts.” Marin v. King County*, 194 Wn.App. 795, 808 (Wash.App. Div. 1 2016), review denied, 186 Wash.2d 1028, 385 P.3d 124 (Table) (Wash. 2016) (citing Grimwood v. Univ. of Puget Sound, Inc., 110 Wn.2d 355, 362-63, 753 P.2d 517 (1988)) (remainder of footnote omitted) (hyperlinks added).

*NOTE: The link will take the reader to either our Court Slips Blog or our Williams Law Group Blog – external websites.

REASONABLE INFERENCE OF DISCRIMINATION — SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES (COMPARATORS)

Plaintiff-employees typically use similarly-situated employees (also known as “comparators”) to show that their employer treats some employees less favorably than others based on one or more protected classes. Accordingly, to raise a reasonable inference of discrimination, a “[s]imilarly situated employee[ ] must have[:]

[1] the same supervisor,

[2] be subject to the same standards, and

[3] have engaged in the same conduct.

Id. (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)) (paragraph formatting added).

(NOTE: additional elements are required to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination, however this article only addresses the “reasonable inference of discrimination” element.)

EXAMPLE: MARIN v. KING COUNTY

For example, in Marin v. King County*, 194 Wn.App. 795, 808 (Wash.App. Div. 1 2016), review denied, 186 Wash.2d 1028, 385 P.3d 124 (Table) (Wash. 2016), Plaintiff-employee Marin worked for King County as an operator at a wastewater treatment plant. Therein, Marin alleged King County unlawfully discriminated against him based on a variety of incidents. In one incident, Marin “did not follow the correct procedure to ‘lock out’ and ‘tag out’ a sewage pump.” Id. at 803. Consequently, Marin’s supervisor, Read, issued Marin a Teach/Lead/Coach memo, or TLC. “A TLC is not discipline, though management may base future discipline on a TLC.” Id. “Read saw it as a basic error for someone with Marin’s experience. Marin perceived Read to be yelling at him and became anxious.” Id. “Marin eventually gave notice he would retire in May 2011.” Id. at 804.

trial court

Thereafter, “Marin sued the County in July 2011[,] alleg[ing] six causes of action: disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and failure to accommodate disabilities under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), wrongful discharge, and both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.” Id. (footnote omitted). Inter alia, “[t]he trial court dismissed Marin’s disparate treatment claim on summary judgment.” Id. at 801.

court of appeals — division one

Marin appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit. See id. at 801. On appeal, Division One, held that Marin failed to raise a reasonable inference of discrimination.

Different Supervisor

“Marin … contended the County treated him differently than a nonprotected employee, … Burton, who also made a lockout error. ” Id at 810. However, the Court found that “[e]ven if Marin had shown Burton’s error to be analogous to his own, Burton is still not a valid comparator because he worked under a different supervisor.” Id. (footnote omitted).

same treatment

The Court then found that “the record does not show that the County treated Marin differently than Burton, who also received a TLC–albeit an oral one–after his error.” Id. It reasoned: “A reasonable employee would not interpret Marin’s TLC as setting ‘impossible or terrifying unique performance standards’ or threatening termination.”

HOLDING

Accordingly, the Court held that “the trial court properly dismissed Marin’s claim of disparate treatment based on protected status.” Id. at 810-11.

*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Court Slips Blog – an external website.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Definition of Prima Facie Case**

» Disparate Treatment

» Disparate Treatment: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification**

» Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment**

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

» Prima Facie Case: The Replacement Element**

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment via Direct Evidence

» WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

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

LEARN MORE

January 13, 2023November 27, 2025

WSHRC: Findings

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what are the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”) regulations concerning 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

Understanding WAC 162-08-098: Findings in Human Rights Commission Investigations

When the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) investigates a discrimination complaint, its ultimate goal is to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that an unfair practice has occurred. WAC 162-08-098* outlines how the Commission formalizes those determinations through official findings, which serve as a critical turning point in the complaint process.

Purpose of the Findings Document

Every investigation concludes with a written findings document containing two key elements:

1. Findings of fact — A summary of what the investigation determined actually occurred, based on evidence gathered.

2. Ultimate finding — A formal conclusion stating whether there is:

• Reasonable cause to believe discrimination or another unfair practice has occurred,

• No reasonable cause, or

• A jurisdictional finding, as discussed below.

This document provides transparency and structure, ensuring that both parties understand the Commission’s basis for its conclusions.

Jurisdictional Findings

Sometimes, the facts reveal that the matter is not within the Commission’s jurisdiction—for example, if the complaint involves a federal agency or an employer too small to be covered under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). In such cases, the Commission issues a finding of “no jurisdiction.”

In extraordinary circumstances, even when the Commission technically has jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise it for overriding reasons of law or policy. A rare example is when the complaint is filed against the Commission itself, which would create a conflict of interest. In these situations, the ultimate finding is “jurisdiction declined.”

Scope of a “Reasonable Cause” Finding

When the Commission finds reasonable cause, it must specify:

• The specific unfair practice found (such as discriminatory discharge or housing denial),

• The individual(s) affected, and

• If applicable, the class of persons impacted.

This level of detail ensures that remedial efforts—such as conciliation or negotiated settlements—address the actual harm uncovered during investigation.

Commissioner Involvement and Actions

Findings of no reasonable cause are reported to the Commissioners at a meeting and become official unless the Commissioners vote to set them aside.

Findings of reasonable cause empower Commission staff to pursue conciliation efforts—attempting to resolve the matter voluntarily through dialogue and agreement.

Proposed findings of “no jurisdiction” or “jurisdiction declined” require formal approval by the Commissioners through a vote at a meeting.

The Legal Effect of Findings

Importantly, a finding of reasonable cause or no reasonable cause is not a legal adjudication. It does not determine whether discrimination actually occurred in the legal sense—it merely reflects the Commission’s administrative conclusion based on its investigation.

Implications

WAC 162-08-098 ensures that the Human Rights Commission’s processes remain fair, consistent, and transparent. By clearly defining how and when findings are made—and distinguishing investigative conclusions from legal determinations—the rule protects the integrity of both complainants’ and respondents’ rights. It also reinforces the Commission’s role as a neutral fact-finder, dedicated to resolving discrimination claims efficiently while maintaining public trust in the enforcement of Washington’s anti-discrimination laws.

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

» WA State Human Rights Commission Complaints

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

» WSHRC: From Complaint to Conclusion

» WSHRC: Organization and Operations

» WSHRC: 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

December 1, 2022October 21, 2024

EEOC: The Notice of Right to Sue

Under federal laws and regulations, what is the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOCs) Notice of Right to Sue? NOTE: This article addresses public and private employment and does not address federal government employees or applicants.

Advertisement

THE U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC)

The EEOC is a federal agency “responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and related conditions, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.” U.S. EEOC Website, https://www.eeoc.gov/overview (last visited 11/29/22).

eeoc functions

“The laws apply to all types of work situations, including hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and benefits.” Id. Accordingly, the EEOC has authority to perform several functions:

(1) To investigate charges of discrimination against employers who are covered by the law.

(2) To prevent discrimination before it occurs through outreach, education, and technical assistance programs.

(3) To provide leadership and guidance to federal agencies on all aspects of the federal government’s equal employment opportunity program.

Id. As part of its investigative function, the EEOC is responsible for issuing the Notice of Right to Sue.

THE 90-DAY NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE

Charge Filing

The claimant must first file a charge with the EEOC if the claimant plans “to file a lawsuit under federal law alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, genetic information, or retaliation, … (except for lawsuits under the Equal Pay Act, see below).” U.S. EEOC Website, https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-lawsuit (last visited 11/29/22). I will explain certain exceptions later in this article.

Notice of Right to Sue

The EEOC Notice of Right to Sue gives the claimant permission to file a lawsuit in federal or state court based on certain federal laws. See id. The EEOC will provide the claimant a Notice of Right to Sue when it closes its investigation. See id. In addition, claimants can request a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC office investigating the charge if the claimant seeks to file a lawsuit in court before the investigation is completed. See id.

90-Day Limitation

When the claimant receives a Notice of Right to Sue, the claimant must file an associated lawsuit within 90 days. Id. “This deadline is set by law. If you don’t file in time, you may be prevented from going forward with your lawsuit.” U.S. EEOC Website, https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-lawsuit (last visited 11/29/22).

Federal Government Employees and Applicants

This article does not address federal government employees or applicants. “The procedures for filing a complaint of discrimination against a federal government agency differ from those for filing a charge against a private or public employer.” Id. To learn more, visit the EEOC Website page: Overview Of Federal Sector EEO Complaint Process.

EXCEPTIONS WHEN FILING A LAWSUIT

Age Discrimination Lawsuits (ADEA)

“If you plan to file an age discrimination lawsuit, you must have filed a charge but you don’t need a Notice of Right to Sue to file a lawsuit in court. You can file a lawsuit in court any time after 60 days have passed from the day you filed your charge (but no later than 90 days after you receive notice that our investigation is concluded).” U.S. EEOC Website, https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-lawsuit (last visited 11/29/22).

Equal Pay Lawsuits (EPA)

“If you plan to file a lawsuit under the Equal Pay Act, you don’t have to file a charge or obtain a Notice of Right to Sue before filing. Rather, you can go directly to court, provided you file your suit within two years from the day the pay discrimination took place (3 years if the discrimination was willful).” Id.

Filing a Lawsuit Before Investigation is Completed

“If you want to file a lawsuit before … [the EEOC has] finished … [their] investigation, you can request a Notice of Right to Sue.” Id.

Advertisement

HOW TO REQUEST A NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE

There are a few ways to request a Notice of Right to Sue depending on your circumstances. “If you have registered in EEOC’s Public Portal, you can submit your request by logging in to your charge account and uploading your request. If you don’t have an online charge account, send your request for a Notice of Right to Sue to the EEOC office responsible for investigating your charge and include your EEOC charge number and the names of the parties.” U.S. EEOC Website, https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-lawsuit (last visited 11/29/22).

In any event, the EEOC has time limitations in fulfilling requests for Notices of Right to Sue.

Before 180 Days Have Passed

Before 180 days have passed from the date the claimant’s charge was filed, the EEOC will give the claimant the notice only if the EEOC will be unable to complete their investigation within 180 days. See id. According to the EEOC, “If you want the EEOC to continue investigating your charge, don’t request a Notice of Right to Sue.” Id.

After 180 Days Have Passed

After 180 days have passed from the date the claimant’s charge was filed, the EEOC is required by law to give the claimant the notice upon their request. See id.

CONCLUSION

The EEOCs Notice of Right to Sue gives the claimant permission to file a lawsuit in federal or state court based on certain federal laws. See U.S. EEOC Website, https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-lawsuit (last visited 11/29/22). The EEOC will provide the claimant a Notice of Right to Sue when it closes its investigation. See id. In addition, claimants can request a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC office investigating the charge if the claimant seeks to file a lawsuit in court before the investigation is completed. See id. When the claimant receives a Notice of Right to Sue, the claimant must file an associated lawsuit within 90 days. “This deadline is set by law. If you don’t file in time, you may be prevented from going forward with your lawsuit.” Id.

The reader is strongly encouraged to seek legal counsel when first considering claims of employment discrimination.

Using Circumstantial Evidence to Prove Employment Discrimination

As an employment attorney in Washington, I often converse with employment discrimination victims that believe their cases are weak, because they lack direct evidence. They’re unaware that using circumstantial evidence to prove employment discrimination is a common litigation practice that can sometimes lead to successful outcomes.

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), may an employment discrimination victim rely on circumstantial, indirect, and inferential evidence to prove employment discrimination? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD): UNFAIR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS

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

It is an unfair practice for any employer:

[REFUSE TO HIRE]

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

[dISCHARGE OR BAR FROM EMPLOYMENT]

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

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

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

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

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

RCW 49.60.180 (emphasis and hyperlinks added). NOTE: WLAD rights are based upon protected classes and may be litigated based upon direct and/or circumstantial evidence.

USING CIRCUMSTANTIAL, INDIRECT EVIDENCE TO PROVE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

“Because direct evidence of discriminatory intent is rare, an employee may rely on circumstantial, indirect, and inferential evidence to establish discriminatory action.” Crabtree v. Jefferson Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 2*, 500 P.3d 203, 211 (Wash. App. 2021) (citing Mikkelsen v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Kittitas County*, 189 Wash.2d 516, 526, 404 P.3d 464 (2017)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (hyperlinks added).

“Where the employee lacks direct evidence, Washington has adopted the three step evidentiary burden shifting framework* announced in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973) for discriminatory discharge claims.” Id. (citing Scrivener v. Clark Coll.*, 181 Wash.2d 439, 445-46, 334 P.3d 541 (2014)) (hyperlinks added). Although the framework* was originally applied to solely discriminatory-discharge claims, courts have expanded its scope to include other theories of employment discrimination (e.g., <disparate treatment>, <disparate impact>, <hostile work environment>, <unlawful retaliation>, etc.).

(*NOTE: The link will take the reader to either our Court Slips Blog or our Williams Law Group Blog – external websites.)

Advertisement

**THE MCDONNELL DOUGLAS EVIDENTIARY BURDEN-SHIFTING FRAMEWORK**

The McDonnell Douglas Evidentiary Burden-Shifting Framework* has three steps:

STEP 1 – prima facie case

“First, [under the burden-shifting framework,] an employee must make a prima facie case …[.]” Crabtree*, 500 P.3d at 211 (Wash. App. 2021) (citing Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d at 527, 404 P.3d 464 (2017)) (hyperlinks added). “Where the employee establishes a prima facie case, a rebuttable presumption of discrimination exists. Id. at 211-12 (citing Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d at 527, 404 P.3d 464).

STEP 2 – LEGITIMATE NONDISCRIMINATORY REASON

“Second, the burden shifts to the employer, who must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the … [adverse employment action].” See id. at 212 (citing Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d at 527, 404 P.3d 464) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (hyperlink added). “The employer is not required to persuade the court that it actually was motivated by the nondiscriminatory reason, the employer need only show that the employer’s evidence, if taken as true would permit the conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason.” Id. (citing Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d at 533, 404 P.3d 464).

STEP 3 – PRETEXT

“Third, if the employer meets this burden, the employee must produce sufficient evidence showing that the employer’s alleged nondiscriminatory reason for the discharge was a pretext*.” Crabtree*, 500 P.3d at 212 (citing Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d at 527, 404 P.3d 464) (hyperlinks added).

(*NOTE: The link will take the reader to either our Court Slips Blog or our Williams Law Group Blog – external websites.)

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).

CONCLUSION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, I believe employment-discrimination plaintiffs may rely on circumstantial, indirect, and inferential evidence to prove employment discrimination. This is primarily because direct evidence of discriminatory intent is rare.

LEARN MORE

November 17, 2022October 21, 2024

Employment-Discrimination Hotlines & Unlawful Retaliation

Employee-Discrimination Hotlines: Use Caution

Employees in Washington State that use employment-discrimination hotlines to submit complaints to their employers sometimes experience consequent retaliation by their employers. It’s not uncommon. Such employees who thereafter pursue associated claims of unlawful retaliation against their employers soon realize the importance of their hotline complaints — particularly, the wording.

Under Washington State unlawful-retaliation laws, should employees reporting employment discrimination via employment-discrimination hotlines specify their protected status (or statuses), when they might rely on those reports to pursue prospective, associated claims of unlawful-retaliation against their employers? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD) — PROTECTED STATUSES

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

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

(*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog – an external website.)

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION (WA STATE)

“The WLAD prohibits retaliation against a party asserting a claim based on a perceived violation of his civil rights or participating in an investigation into alleged workplace discrimination.” Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC, 178 Wn.App. 734, 753 (Div. 2 2013) (citing RCW 49.60.210) (hyperlink added).

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

“To establish a prima facie* retaliation case, a plaintiff must show that[:]

(1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity,

(2) his employer took an adverse employment action against him, and

(3) there is a causal link between the activity and the adverse action.

Id. at 753-54 (citing Short v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 169 Wn.App. 188, 205, 279 P.3d 902 (2012)) (paragraph formatting added) (emphasis added). The first element–statutorily protected activity–is at issue for purposes of this article.

(*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog – an external website.)

ELEMENT #1: STUTORILY PROTECTED ACTIVITY

One way “[a]n employee engages in WLAD-protected activity [is] when … [the employee] opposes employment practices forbidden by antidiscrimination law or other practices that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory.” Id. at 754 (citing Short, 169 Wn.App. at 205).

However, “[a] general complaint about an employer’s unfair conduct does not rise to the level of protected activity in a discrimination action under WLAD absent some reference to the plaintiff’s protected status.” Alonso, 178 Wn.App. at 754 (referencing Graves v. Dep’t of Game, 76 Wn.App. 705, 712, 887 P.2d 424 (1994)) (emphasis and hyperlink added).

Advertisement

EXAMPLE: ALONSO v. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LLC (EMPLOYMENT-DISCRIMINATION HOTLINES)

In Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC, “Alonso sued his employer, Qwest Communications Company LLC, and his supervisor for discrimination [based on Alonso’s combat-veteran, disabled-person, and Mexican-American statuses.]” Id. at 734. “[T]he superior court granted Qwest summary judgment dismissal of Alonso’s complaint.” Id. “Alonso appeal[ed], arguing that he provided sufficient evidence to establish [a] prima facie discrimination claim[ ] for[, inter alia,] … unlawful retaliation.” Id.

While working for Qwest, Alonso “used a company hotline to make a general complaint about corruption, mistreatment, and vulgar language against both his supervisor and another employee.” Id. at 754 (emphasis added). However, Alonso “did not express that his complaints were in response to harassment based on any protected status.” Id. (emphasis and hyperlink added).

Accordingly, “[t]he Court [of Appeals] initially evaluated whether Alonso met the first element of an unlawful retaliation claim — that he participated in protected activity.” Id. The court held that Alonso failed to sufficiently establish a prima facie retaliation case, because he did not phone the hotline to report discrimination against him based on a protected class. Id. at 754 (hyperlink added). Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of his unlawful retaliation claim. Id. at 754-55.

CONCLUSION

Under Washington State unlawful-retaliation laws, I believe employees electing to report employment discrimination–via employer hotlines–should seriously consider specifying their relevant protected status(es) if they might rely on those reports to prosecute associated, prospective unlawful-retaliation claims. IMPORTANT: In any event, NO content in this article, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney.

Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, how does one prove the “causal-link” element when pursuing a claim of unlawful retaliation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION (WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION)

“To establish a prima facie case* of retaliation [using the McDonnell Douglas ‘evidentiary burden-shifting’ framework*] an employee must show three things:

(1) the employee took a statutorily protected action,

(2) the employee suffered an adverse employment action, and

(3) a causal link between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403, 411, 430 P.3d 229 (2018) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis, paragraphs, and hyperlinks added).

*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog – an external website.

ELEMENT #3: PROVING THE CAUSAL LINK

“Ordinarily, proof of the employer’s motivation must be shown by circumstantial evidence because the employer is not apt to announce retaliation as his motive.” Kahn v. Salerno, 90 Wn. App. 110, 130-31, 951 P.2d 321, review denied, 136 Wn.2d 1016 (1998) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, there are two typical methods of proving a causal link between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action.

METHOD #1 (Proximity & Performance): “Proximity in time between the adverse action and the protected activity, coupled with evidence of satisfactory work performance and supervisory evaluations suggests an improper motive.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

METHOD #2 (Knowledge & Discharge): “[I]f the employee establishes that he or she participated in an opposition activity, the employer knew of the opposition activity, and he or she was discharged, then a rebuttable presumption is created in favor of the employee that precludes … [the court] from dismissing the employee’s case.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

Fair Employment Practice Agencies

Under the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission laws and regulations, what are Fair Employment Practice Agencies? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter, “EEOC”) is an independent federal agency, headquartered in Washington, D.C., that maintains 53 field offices serving the entire country. It’s charged with “enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, transgender status, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.” See Official EEOC Website, https://www.eeoc.gov/overview (last accessed 11/2/22).

The EEOC “laws apply to all types of work situations, including hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and benefits”; those same laws also cover most labor unions and employment agencies. See id.

DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER

Generally, employers with at least 15 employees (20 employees in age discrimination cases) are subject to EEOC laws, however there are a few exceptions. For example, the EEOC is responsible for enforcing, inter alia, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter, “Title VII”); under Title VIIs definition of employer, not all are subject to its reach. The relevant provision states as follows:

(b) The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include[:]

(1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive service (as defined in section 2102 of title 5), or

(2) a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization) which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of title 26, except that during the first year after March 24, 1972, persons having fewer than twenty-five employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)(Definitions) (NOTE: the EEOC also enforces other laws beyond Title VII; the preceding was only one example) (emphasis added).

FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AGENCIES (FEPAs)

The term Fair Employment Practices Agency or FEPA is a term coined by the EEOC. They are state and local government agencies charged with enforcing their own jurisdictional laws prohibiting discrimination; and their laws are similar to those enforced by the EEOC. However, it’s important to note:

In some cases, these agencies enforce laws that offer greater protection to workers, such as protection from discrimination because you are married or unmarried, have children or because of your sexual orientation. There also may be different deadlines for filing a charge, different standards for determining whether you are protected by these laws, and different types of relief available to victims of discrimination.

See Official EEOC Website, https://www.eeoc.gov/fair-employment-practices-agencies-fepas-and-dual-filing (last accessed 11/2/22).

Unlawful Employer Communications & Preemployment Activities

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, subsection 49.60.180(4) (Unfair Practices of Employers), what are unlawful employer communications and preemployment activities? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD): UNLWAFUL EMPLOYER COMMUNICATIONS & PREEMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES

The Washington Law Against Discrimination, subsection 49.60.180(4) RCW, regulates (1) employer statements, advertisements, and publications; (2) employer applications for employment; and (3) employer inquiries in connection with prospective employment. The relevant text is as follows:

It is an unfair practice for any employer:

…

(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, 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, advertising in a foreign language is not prohibited.

RCW 49.60.180(4) (hyperlinks and emphasis added). This is not an exhaustive recitation of the law on this subject. See chapter 49.60 RCW.

REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES

Typically, any person deeming himself or herself injured by their employer–as strictly defined by RCW 49.60.040(11)–as a result of its commission of an unfair practice is entitled to the following:

[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 Washington Law Against Discrimination 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.).

See RCW 49.60.030(2).

CONCLUSION

The WLAD, subsection 49.60.180(4) RCW, regulates (1) employer statements, advertisements, and publications; (2) employer applications for employment; and (3) employer inquiries in connection with prospective employment. Accordingly, employers are prohibited from engaging in any of these activities if they express any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to a protected class or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination.

LEARN MORE

August 18, 2022October 21, 2024

Hostile Work Environment: Imputing Harassment to Employer

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), how may a plaintiff establish the fourth element–imputing harassment to employer–when pursuing a claim of hostile work environment? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

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

It is also an unfair practice for an employer to retaliate (i.e., discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate) against person because the person complained about any practices forbidden by the WLAD, or because the person has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under WLAD.

Hostile work environment is an unfair practice under the WLAD.

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

In Washington State, the terms “hostile work environment” and “harassment” are synonymous within the context of employment discrimination law. “To establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show the following four elements:

(1) the harassment was unwelcome,

(2) the harassment was because [plaintiff was a member of a protected class],

(3) the harassment affected the terms or conditions of employment, and

(4) the harassment is imputable to the employer.

Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264, 275 (Wash. 2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original) (emphasis and hyperlinks added); see also Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 406-07, 693 P.2d 708 (1985) (explaining what is required to establish a hostile work environment case) . This article will address the fourth element: that harassment can be imputed to the employer.

ELEMENT 4: IMPUTING HARASSMENT TO EMPLOYERS

In Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., the Washington State Supreme Court explained how to impute harassment to employers, as follows:

[A. Owners, Managers, Partners or Corporate Officers:]
Where an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participates in the harassment, this element is met by such proof.

[B. Supervisors or Co-Workers:]
To hold an employer responsible for the discriminatory work environment created by a plaintiff’s supervisor(s) or co-worker(s), the employee must show that the employer[:]

(a) authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and

(b) failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.

This my be shown by proving[:]

(a) that complaints were made to the employer through higher managerial or supervisory personnel or by proving such a pervasiveness of … harassment [based on a protected class] at the work place as to create an inference of the employer’s knowledge or constructive knowledge of it and

(b) that the employer’s remedial action was not of such nature as to have been reasonable calculated to end the harassment. . . .

[C. Avoiding Liability:]
[A]n employer may ordinarily avoid liability by taking prompt and adequate corrective action when it learns that an employee is being . . . harassed [based on a protected class].

Id. at 407-08 (emphasis and paragraph formatting added) (last alteration in original).

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: Terms or Conditions of Employment

Hostile Work Environment: The Unwelcome Element

McDonnel Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework**

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: These are external links that will take you to our Williams Law Group Blog.)

THE AFTER-ACQUIRED EVIDENCE DOCTRINE

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION: DISPARATE TREATMENT

REASONABLE INFERENCE OF DISCRIMINATION — SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES (COMPARATORS)

EXAMPLE: MARIN v. KING COUNTY

trial court

court of appeals — division one

Different Supervisor

same treatment

HOLDING

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

Understanding WAC 162-08-098: Findings in Human Rights Commission Investigations

Purpose of the Findings Document

Jurisdictional Findings

Scope of a “Reasonable Cause” Finding

Commissioner Involvement and Actions

The Legal Effect of Findings

Implications

RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

THE U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC)

eeoc functions

THE 90-DAY NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE

Charge Filing

Notice of Right to Sue

90-Day Limitation

Federal Government Employees and Applicants

EXCEPTIONS WHEN FILING A LAWSUIT

Age Discrimination Lawsuits (ADEA)

Equal Pay Lawsuits (EPA)

Filing a Lawsuit Before Investigation is Completed

HOW TO REQUEST A NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE

Before 180 Days Have Passed

After 180 Days Have Passed

CONCLUSION

READ MORE OF OUR RELATED ARTICLES

need help?

THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD): UNFAIR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS

[REFUSE TO HIRE]

[dISCHARGE OR BAR FROM EMPLOYMENT]

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

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

USING CIRCUMSTANTIAL, INDIRECT EVIDENCE TO PROVE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

THE MCDONNELL DOUGLAS EVIDENTIARY BURDEN-SHIFTING FRAMEWORK

STEP 1 – prima facie case

STEP 2 – LEGITIMATE NONDISCRIMINATORY REASON

STEP 3 – PRETEXT

WLAD REMEDIES

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD) — PROTECTED STATUSES

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION (WA STATE)

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

ELEMENT #1: STUTORILY PROTECTED ACTIVITY

EXAMPLE: ALONSO v. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LLC (EMPLOYMENT-DISCRIMINATION HOTLINES)

CONCLUSION

READ MORE OF OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION (WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION)

ELEMENT #3: PROVING THE CAUSAL LINK

READ MORE OF OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER

FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AGENCIES (FEPAs)

READ MORE RELATED ARTICLES

NEED HELP?

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD): UNLWAFUL EMPLOYER COMMUNICATIONS & PREEMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES

REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

ELEMENT 4: IMPUTING HARASSMENT TO EMPLOYERS

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

**THE MCDONNELL DOUGLAS EVIDENTIARY BURDEN-SHIFTING FRAMEWORK**