Evidence Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

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.

(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

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.)

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.

July 21, 2022October 21, 2024

Disparate Treatment: Pretext by Comparison

Under the McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting Scheme (hereinafter, “McDonnell Douglas“), may a Washington State plaintiff establish the pretext-prong by comparison, when pursuing a claim of disparate treatment? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS BURDEN-SHIFTING SCHEME

In the summary judgment context, to succeed on a claim of disparate treatment using McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1168 (9th Cir. 2007).

If the plaintiff states a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant-employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the challenged action. Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. Of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks omitted).

If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must then show a triable issue of material fact as to whether the defendant’s stated reason is mere pretext for unlawful discrimination. Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt, Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). This last requirement is know as the prextext prong.

THE PRETEXT PRONG

Generally, to prove pretext under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s articulated reasons

(1) had no basis in fact,

(2) were not really motivating factors for its decision,

(3) were not temporally connected to the adverse employment action, or

(4) were not motivating factors in employment decisions for other employees in the same circumstances.

Id. (internal citation omitted) (emphasis and paragraph formatting added). The fourth element allows a plaintiff to prove pretext by using comparison.

PROVING PRETEXT BY COMPARISON

Accordingly, to prove pretext by comparison in Washington State, a plaintiff must show that

(1) an employee outside the protected class

(2) committed acts of comparable seriousness

(3) but was not demoted or similarly disciplined.

Johnson v. Department of Social & Health Services, 907 P.2d 1223, 80 Wn.App. 212, 227 (Wash.App. Div. 2 1996) (referencing Hiatt v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 26 F.3d 761, 770 (7th Cir.1994)) (paragraph formatting added).

Arguably, acts of comparable seriousness need not be violations of identical company disciplinary rules. See, e.g., Hiatt v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 26 F.3d 761, 770 (7th Cir. 1994) (Court previously held that “acts of comparable seriousness need not be violations of identical company disciplinary rules”) (internal citation omitted). Plaintiffs are free to compare similar conduct, focusing more on the nature of the misconduct rather than on specific company rules. Id. (internal citation omitted).

OCCASIONAL LENIENCY NOT ENOUGH

However, plaintiffs may need to demonstrate more than occasional leniency toward other employees who had engaged in conduct of a similar nature. See id. at 771 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Ultimately, “incomplete or arbitrary comparisons reveal nothing concerning discrimination.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

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**

» 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

» 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

August 26, 2021October 21, 2024

The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment via Direct Evidence

Under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what is the Direct Evidence Method of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

DISPARATE TREATMENT

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, 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)) (hyperlink added).

“To establish a prima facie disparate treatment discrimination 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).

THE PRIMA FACE CASE: 2 METHODS

“A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case 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.

Id. at 743-44 (citing Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483, 491, 859 P.2d 26, 865 P.2d 507 (1993)) (emphasis and paragraph formatting added).

This article will address the direct evidence method.

THE DIRECT EVIDENCE METHOD

Under the direct evidence method, “a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by providing direct evidence that[:]

(1) the defendant employer acted with a discriminatory motive and

(2) the discriminatory motivation was a significant or substantial factor in an employment decision.

Id. at 744 (citing Kastanis, 122 Wn.2d at 491) (paragraph formatting added).

CONSIDERATIONS

» EMPLOYER’S DISCRIMINATORY REMARKS GENERALLY CONSIDERED DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION: “We generally consider an employer’s discriminatory remarks to be direct evidence of discrimination.” Id. (referencing Johnson v. Express Rent & Own, Inc., 113 Wn.App. 858, 862-63, 56 P.3d 567 (2002) (“reversing summary judgment based on supervisor’s ageist comments that plaintiff did not fit company’s image of a youthful, fit, ‘GQ’ looking mold” )).

» SIGNIFICANT OR SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN AN EMPLOYMENT DECISION: ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION: “An adverse employment action involves a change in employment conditions that is more than an inconvenience or alteration of one’s job responsibilities, such as reducing an employee’s workload and pay.” Id. at 746 (citing Campbell v. State, 129 Wn.App. 10, 22, 118 P.3d 888 (2005), review denied, 157 Wn.2d 1002 (2006)).

Demotion, Adverse Transfer, and Hostile Work Environment: “A demotion or adverse transfer, or a hostile work environment, may also amount to an adverse employment action.” Id. (citing Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wn.App. 454, 465, 98 P.3d 827 (2004), review denied, 154 Wn.2d 1007 (2005)).

The Prima Facie Case: Reasonable Accommodations

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

Advertisement

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS (WA STATE)

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

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

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

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (WA STATE)

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

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

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

TAKE OUR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TEST (VIDEO):

WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, may an employee-plaintiff build a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on a hostile work environment when using the direct evidence approach? 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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), it is an unfair practice, with very few exceptions, for an employer to refuse to hire any person, to discharge or bar any person from employment, or to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms and conditions of employment because of age (40+); sex (including pregnancy); marital status; sexual orientation (including gender identity); race; color; creed; national origin; 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.

DISPARATE TREATMENT

Disparate treatment is a form of employment discrimination, and it occurs when an employer treats some people less favorably than others based on protected class.

Accordingly, to establish a prima facie disparate treatment discrimination case, a plaintiff must show that his employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of their protected status. Alonso v. Qwest Commc’ns Co., LLC, 178 Wn.App. 734, 743, 315 P.3d 610 (Wash.App. Div. 2 2013) (citing Johnson v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 80 Wn.App. 212, 226, 907 P.2d 1223 (1996)).

A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case by either offering direct evidence of an employer’s discriminatory intent, or by satisfying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test that gives rise to an inference of discrimination. Id. at 743-44 (citing Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483, 491, 859 P.2d 26, 865 P.2d 507 (1993)). This article solely addresses the direct evidence approach.

DIRECT EVIDENCE TEST

The plaintiff can establish a prima facie case under the direct evidence test by offering direct evidence of the following:

1. The defendant employer acted with a discriminatory motive; and

2. The discriminatory motivation was a significant or substantial factor in an employment decision.

Id. at 744 (citing Kastanis, 122 Wn.2d at 491).

SIGNIFICANT/SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR

The 2nd second element–discriminatory motivation was a significant or substantial factor in an employment decision–is at issue here. Stated differently, the plaintiff must establish that the discriminatory motive (1st element) was a significant or substantial factor in the subject employment decision. Obviously, employee-plaintiffs will be claiming that the subject employment decision was adverse to their interests.

However, an adverse employment action involves a change in employment conditions that is more than an inconvenience or alteration of one’s job responsibilities, such as reducing an employee’s workload and pay. Id. at 748 (citing Campbell v. State, 129 Wn.App. 10, 22, 118 P.3d 888 (2005), review denied, 157 Wn.2d 1002 (2006)).

A demotion or adverse transfer, or a hostile work environment, may amount to an adverse employment action. Id. at 746 (citing Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wn.App. 454, 465, 98 P.3d 827 (2004), review denied, 154 Wn.2d 1007 (2005)) (emphasis added).

CONCLUSION

An employee-plaintiff might be able to build a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on a hostile work environment. However, the prima facie case will be incomplete unless the employee-plaintiff is also able to establish the 1st element of the direct evidence test; this article only addresses the 2nd element.

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

» 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

June 28, 2021October 20, 2024

FRCP 35 Exams Based on Emotional Distress (9th Circuit)

Under federal law, does a plaintiff’s claim of emotional distress place his/her mental condition in controversy for purposes of FRCP 35 exams? 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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

THE GENERAL RULE

If a plaintiff objects to a FRCP 35 exam, the court has discretion to enter an order compelling examination only if the employer can establish:

(A) that a physical or mental condition of the person sought to be examined is “in controversy,” and

(B) that “good cause” exists.

See Houghton v. M & F Fishing, Inc., 198 F.R.D. 666, 667 (2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Courts in jurisdictions throughout the country are divided on the issue as to whether a claim of emotional distress places the plaintiff’s mental condition at issue (in controversy). But the modern trend in courts is to increasingly find that it does not.

FRCP 35 EXAMS BASED ON EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: 9TH CIRCUIT

The general position of courts in the 9th Circuit appears to be that a claim for emotional distress damages, by itself, is not sufficient to place the plaintiff’s mental condition in controversy for purposes of FRCP 35(a). Ford v. Contra Costa County, 179 F.R.D. 579, 580 (N.D.Cal. 1998) (referencing, Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 92-97 (S.D.Cal.1995) (thoroughly surveying the relevant case law, distinguishing several unconventional cases including Smedley v. Capps, Staples, Ward, hastings & Dodson, 820 F.Supp. 1227 (N.D.Cal.1993), and determining not to set Smedly, inter alia, as precedent)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Instead, the trend for 9th Circuit courts is as follows:

[T]he movant must also demonstrate that (1) the plaintiff has pled a cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff has alleged a specific mental or psychiatric injury; (3) the plaintiff has pled a claim for unusually severe emotional distress; (4) the plaintiff plans to offer expert testimony to support a claim of emotional distress and/or (5) the plaintiff has conceded that his or her mental condition is ” in controversy” for purposes of FRCP 35(a).

Id. (internal citation omitted).

These courts have further found that a Plaintiff merely seeking damages in excess of a million dollars for humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress does not justify a request for a mental examination. Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. at 97.

GARDEN VARIETY EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Thus, for example, a plaintiff seeking “garden variety emotional distress” damages in excess of one million dollars, pursuant to claims solely under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, may argue that he/she is not subject to FRCP 35 examination, because his/her mental condition is not in controversy (provided he/she does not satisfy the additional above mentioned requirements set forth in Ford v. Contra Costa County, 179 F.R.D. at 580 (N.D.Cal. 1998), supra); but whoever asserts this type argument should be prepared to fight it out in Court — the defendant(s) will likely file a motion.

LEARN MORE

June 26, 2021October 20, 2024

Behind Closed Doors: WLAD & ESD Appeals

Under Washington State law, may an employment discrimination plaintiff use favorable findings from a previous unemployment benefits appeal against the associated defendant employer, when pursuing a claim under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD)? 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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

A COMMON ISSUE

Occasionally, one of my employment discrimination clients will vigorously attempt to convince me that they received favorable findings against their employer during their unemployment benefits appeal conducted through the Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings; and that the findings will help them win their subsequent discrimination lawsuit under WLAD. Unfortunately, I usually have bad news for those clients.

Stated differently, the issue is whether findings made by an administrative law judge (ALJ) during a Washington State unemployment benefits appeal hearing may be admitted in a separate employment discrimination lawsuit outside the scope of Title 50 RCW between an individual and the individual’s present or prior employer?

WA STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT

The Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD) was created in 1939. Its mission is to “partner to connect employers and job seekers – supporting transitions to new jobs and empowering careers.”

If an individual applies for unemployment benefits through the ESD and is denied; then the individual can request an appeal. In that case, the ESD will forward the appeal to the Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) which is not part of the ESD. The OAH will then assign an administrative law judge to hear the case.

TITLE 50 RCW

The Washington State laws relating to the ESD are contained in Title 50 RCW, and the relevant law states as follows:

Any finding, determination, conclusion, declaration, or final order made by the commissioner, or his or her representative or delegate, or by an appeal tribunal, administrative law judge, reviewing officer, or other agent of the department for the purposes of Title 50 RCW, shall not be conclusive, nor binding, nor admissible as evidence in any separate action outside the scope of Title 50 RCW between an individual and the individual’s present or prior employer before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the United States, regardless of whether the prior action was between the same or related parties or involved the same facts or was reviewed pursuant to RCW 50.32.120.

RCW 50.32.097 (emphasis and hyperlink added).

CONCLUSION

Findings made by an administrative law judge during a Washington State unemployment benefits appeal hearing are generally not admissible in a subsequent WLAD employment discrimination lawsuit (before an arbitrator, court, or judge) outside the scope of Title 50 RCW between the employee and the employee’s present or prior employer.

LEARN MORE

June 25, 2021October 20, 2024

Section 1983, Unofficial Custom, and Local Governmental Liability

Under Section 1983, may an individual bring a civil rights lawsuit against a city based upon allegations that the city engaged in an illegal custom — even if the custom was not officially established? 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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

UNOFFICIAL GOVERNMENTAL CUSTOM

Local governmental entities may be sued under Section 1983 for “constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental ‘custom,’ even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the entity’s official decisionmaking channels.” City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 121, 108 S. Ct. 915, 99 L. Ed. 2d 107, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 412 (1988) (internal citations omitted).

“Showing a longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local government entity is one way to establish municipal liability.” Ulrich v. City and County of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

EXAMPLE: CHEW v. GATES

In Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir. 1994) a police officer turned a police dog loose on Chew and it assaulted Chew directly causing injury; the city argued that the unofficial policy of using dogs to apprehend suspects was attributable only to the non-policymaking officers responsible for training the canine units and not the police chief or commission — policymaking officials.

The court found that “[a] city could not escape liability for the consequences of established and ongoing departmental policy regarding the use of force simply by permitting such basic policy decisions to be made by lower level officials who are not ordinarily considered policymakers.” Id. at 1445.

Furthermore, the court found that “if the city in fact permitted departmental policy regarding the use of canine force to be designed and implemented at lower levels of the department, a jury could, and should, nevertheless find that the policy constituted an established municipal ‘custom or usage’ regarding the use of police dogs for which the city is responsible.” Id. (referencing City of St. Louis, 485 U.S. at 127)

Thus, the court held that the city acted under color of law in injuring Chew.

CONCLUSION

Under § 1983, I believe an individual may bring a civil rights lawsuit against a city based upon allegations that the city engaged in an unofficial illegal custom.

LEARN MORE

March 8, 2021October 19, 2024

Definition of Prima Facie Case

Under Washington State laws, what is the definition of “prima facie case“? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

THE DICTIONARY

The term “prima facie” means “at first sight; on first appearance but subject to further evidence or information.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1228 (8th ed. 2004). A “prima facie case” means: “1. The establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption … [; or] 2. A party’s production of enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.” Id.

THE CASE LAW

The Washington State Supreme Court has declared, “* * * A ‘prima facie case’ is one where the evidence is sufficient to justify, but not to compel, an inference of liability, or, in other words, evidence to be weighed, but not necessarily to be accepted by a jury or other trier of fact.” Nopson v. City of Seattle, 33 Wn.2d 772, 812, 207 P.2d 674 (1949) (citing McCoy v. Courtney, 25 Wash.2d 956, 962, 172 P.2d 596, 600, 170 A.L.R. 603).

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

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

ELEMENT 4: IMPUTING HARASSMENT TO EMPLOYERS

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS BURDEN-SHIFTING SCHEME

THE PRETEXT PRONG

PROVING PRETEXT BY COMPARISON

OCCASIONAL LENIENCY NOT ENOUGH

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

DISPARATE TREATMENT

THE PRIMA FACE CASE: 2 METHODS

THE DIRECT EVIDENCE METHOD

CONSIDERATIONS

READ MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC

LEARN MORE

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS (WA STATE)

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (WA STATE)

TAKE OUR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TEST (VIDEO):

READ MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC

LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

DISPARATE TREATMENT

DIRECT EVIDENCE TEST

SIGNIFICANT/SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR

CONCLUSION

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

THE GENERAL RULE

FRCP 35 EXAMS BASED ON EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: 9TH CIRCUIT

GARDEN VARIETY EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

LEARN MORE

A COMMON ISSUE

WA STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT

TITLE 50 RCW

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE

UNOFFICIAL GOVERNMENTAL CUSTOM

EXAMPLE: CHEW v. GATES

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE

THE DICTIONARY

THE CASE LAW

need help?