(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
Summary Judgment: Mere Allegations vs. Specific Facts
In an employment discrimination case, the plaintiff “need produce very little evidence in order to overcome an employer‘s motion for summary judgment. This is because ‘the ultimate question is one that can only be resolved through a searching inquiry-one that is most appropriately conducted by a factfinder, upon a full record.’” Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trustees, 225 F.3d 1115, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Schnidrig v. Columbia Mach., Inc., 80 F.3d 1406, 1410 (9th Cir.1996)) (hyperlink added).
But even in employment discrimination cases, summary judgment must be granted when there is a “complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the non-moving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The nonmoving party may not rely on the mere allegations in the pleadings to show a “genuine issue for trial,” but must instead “set forth specific facts[.]” Porter v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 419 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir.2005) (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis added). This means that the nonmoving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (footnote omitted).
Thus, “summary judgment should be granted where the nonmoving party fails to offer evidence from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its favor.” Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995).
Conclusion
Under Washington State law, an employment-discrimination plaintiff may not rely on mere allegations to overcome a motion for summary judgment. Instead, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts.
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.
Why is the idiom “playing the race card” harmful for employment-discrimination victims? Here’s my point of view.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
Why “Playing the Race Card” Is a Harmful Idiom—and Shouldn’t Deter Employees in Washington State from Seeking Justice
In today’s workplaces, discussions about race and discrimination remain highly sensitive—and sometimes even controversial. Unfortunately, one phrase often used to undermine these conversations is the idiom “playing the race card.” Though it may seem like a casual expression, this phrase carries derogatory connotations and can have a chilling effect on individuals experiencing racial discrimination.
For employees in Washington State facing unfair treatment based on race, it’s essential to understand that seeking legal help is not only your right—it can be a necessary step in protecting yourself and improving workplace equity for everyone.
The Problem with “Playing the Race Card”
At its core, the idiom “playing the race card” implies that someone is opportunistically or manipulatively invoking their race to gain an advantage or excuse poor behavior. This notion casts doubt on the legitimacy of racial discrimination claims and frames the accuser as disingenuous.
This phrase is problematic for several reasons:
1. It Delegitimizes Genuine Concerns: Using this idiom suggests that raising concerns about racism is inherently suspect or dishonest. This mindset undermines the very real, and often well-documented, existence of racial bias in employment decisions such as hiring, promotions, compensation, and termination.
2. It Discourages Reporting: When people fear being accused of “playing the race card,” they may hesitate to come forward with valid claims. This reluctance allows discriminatory practices to persist unchecked.
3. It Perpetuates Systemic Inequality: Framing race-based complaints as exaggerated or attention-seeking minimizes the systemic nature of racism and prevents meaningful dialogue or change.
Know Your Rights in Washington State
Washington State has some of the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the country. Under both state and federal law, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee or job applicant based on certain protected classes including, but not limited to, race.
If you believe that your employer has treated you unfairly because of your race, you have the right to file a complaint and pursue legal recourse. This may include:
The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) provides legal protection for workers and allows victims to seek remedies such as reinstatement, back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, and attorney’s fees.
Why Speaking to an Employment Attorney Matters
Racial discrimination in the workplace is not always blatant. It can take subtle forms—like being passed over for promotions, consistently receiving worse assignments, or enduring offhand remarks that create a hostile environment. An experienced employment attorney can help assess your situation, gather evidence, and advise you on the best path forward.
Crucially, consulting a lawyer sends a clear message: you are not “playing” at anything—you are asserting your legal rights under the law.
Moving Beyond the Stigma
Challenging racial bias isn’t easy, and it often comes with emotional and professional risks. But phrases like “playing the race card” should not be allowed to shame or silence those who have the courage to speak out.
If you’re experiencing discrimination in your workplace, know that your concerns are valid. You don’t have to tolerate unfair treatment, and you’re not alone. Protect your rights. Seek legal guidance. And remember: justice begins with the decision to stand up and be heard.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
Under Washington Superior Court Civil Rules, what is an offer of judgment and how does it encourage settlements during 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
Washington’s CR 68: How an Offer of Judgment Can Shape a Lawsuit
Litigation can be costly, and sometimes the outcome is uncertain. Washington’s Superior Court Civil Rule 68 (CR 68*) gives defendants a tool to manage those risks through what is known as an “offer of judgment.” Understanding this rule can help both attorneys and clients think strategically about settlement. The relevant court rule states as follows:
CR 68
OFFER OF JUDGMENT
At any time more than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against the defending party for the money or property or to the effect specified in the defending party’s offer, with costs then accrued. If within 10 days after the service of the offer the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance together with proof of service thereof and thereupon the court shall enter judgment. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer. The fact that an offer is made but not accepted does not preclude a subsequent offer. When the liability of one party to another has been determined by verdict or order or judgment, but the amount or extent of the liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party adjudged liable may make an offer of judgment, which shall have the same effect as an offer made before trial if it is served within a reasonable time not less than 10 days prior to the commencement of hearings to determine the amount or extent of liability.
At least 10 days before trial, a defendant may make a written offer to the plaintiff to resolve the case for a specified amount of money, property, or other relief. If the plaintiff accepts the offer within 10 days, the court will enter judgment on those terms—effectively ending the case.
If the plaintiff rejects the offer and goes to trial, CR 68* raises the stakes: if the final judgment is not more favorable than the offer, the plaintiff must pay the defendant’s costs incurred after the offer was made.
Why It Matters for Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs should carefully weigh an offer of judgment. Turning down an offer that is equal to or greater than what the court ultimately awards can significantly reduce their recovery, because post-offer costs may shift to them.
Why It Matters for Defendants
For defendants, CR 68* provides leverage. Making a reasonable offer forces plaintiffs to assess litigation risk, knowing they could end up worse off if they gamble on trial. It also creates a formal settlement mechanism that can reduce ongoing litigation expenses.
Offers After Liability Is Decided
Even after a court or jury has determined liability but not yet the amount of damages, a defendant may still make an offer of judgment “if it is served within a reasonable time not less than 10 days prior to the commencement of hearings to determine the amount or extent of liability.” This helps streamline disputes where the only question is “how much,” not “who is responsible.”
Key Takeaway
CR 68* is more than just a settlement option—it’s a strategic tool that can shift litigation costs and encourage realistic evaluation of a case. Plaintiffs and defendants alike should approach offers of judgment with careful consideration using the assistance of legal counsel.
RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
Under Washington State Superior Court Civil Rules (hereinafter, “Civil Rule” or “CR”), what are trials by remote means? 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 Trials by Remote Means in Washington State Superior Court: CR 39(d)
Washington State courts continue to adapt to modern technology and the evolving needs of litigants. One example is Civil Rule 39(d)* of the Superior Court Civil Rules*, which addresses how civil trials can proceed remotely—either in part or entirely.
What Is CR 39(d)?
CR 39(d)* allows civil trials to be conducted by remote means, such as videoconferencing, if certain conditions are met. This rule gives parties more flexibility, especially when travel or logistics might otherwise be barriers to participating in court.
Two Paths to a Remote Trial
There are two main ways a trial may proceed remotely under CR 39(d)*:
1. By Agreement (Stipulation):
If all parties agree and the court approves, the trial can take place remotely in whole or in part. In such cases, the technology used must allow all participants—including the judge, attorneys, and witnesses—to see, hear, and speak to each other clearly. Importantly, the court must also ensure that the trial remains open to the public, with full access to video and audio feeds.
2. By Proposal Without Agreement:
If one party requests a remote trial, the court must schedule a hearing at least 30 days before trial (or sooner by mutual agreement) to consider the proposal. If the parties can’t agree, the trial will default to being held in person, although the court may still permit individual parties or attorneys to appear remotely.
Limitations
CR 39(d)* does not apply to jury selection (voir dire) or pretrial proceedings. It also defers to CR 43* on whether witnesses may testify remotely during an in-person trial.
Why It Matters
Remote trials can improve access to justice, reduce costs, and increase scheduling flexibility. However, they also require reliable technology and coordination. Understanding the process outlined in CR 39(d) helps litigants and attorneys make informed decisions about whether a remote trial is right for their case.
If you’re involved in a civil case in Washington State and considering a remote trial, it’s wise to speak with your attorney early in the process to understand your options and the court’s expectations.
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.
In Washington State, what are personal work journals and how can they help employees (and former employees) when pursing claims of employment discrimination? Here’s my point of view.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
Using a Personal Work Journal in Employment Discrimination Cases in Washington State
When pursuing an employment discrimination claim in Washington State, evidence is essential. Employees often find themselves in the difficult position of needing to prove that discriminatory behavior occurred over time, particularly when such behavior may not have been documented by the employer. In these situations, a well-maintained personal work journal can serve as a valuable tool during litigation.
What Is a Personal Work Journal?
A personal work journal is a private record kept by an employee, documenting workplace events, communications, and observations. This might include:
• Dates and details of discriminatory comments or actions
• Notes on who was present during specific incidents
• Descriptions of performance evaluations and changes in responsibilities
• Documentation of complaints made to HR or supervisors
• Recollections of meetings and informal conversations
While these journals are not official company documents, they can play an important role in shaping a narrative and supporting legal claims.
Because discrimination often occurs subtly or gradually, a personal journal can help demonstrate a consistent pattern that may not be apparent in formal HR records. Courts have recognized that contemporaneous notes—made at or near the time of the incidents—can be more credible than recollections made long after the fact.
How a Work Journal Can Support a Case
1. Establishing a Timeline
A journal can help construct a detailed and chronological account of events. This can be useful in showing causation—for example, if an adverse employment action occurred shortly after an employee complained about discrimination.
2. Corroborating Testimony
Notes that were recorded shortly after an event may support the employee’s version of events during depositions or trial. This can bolster the employee’s credibility and fill in gaps left by limited or sanitized employer records.
3. Identifying Witnesses
Journals often reference others who were present during discriminatory incidents. This information may help attorneys locate potential witnesses to support the employee’s claims.
4. Supporting Claims of Pretext
If an employer offers a non-discriminatory reason for an adverse action* (such as poor performance), a journal may provide evidence suggesting the justification was pretextual*—especially if performance was never questioned before a protected activity occurred.
Best Practices for Maintaining a Journal
For a journal to be helpful and admissible, it’s important to maintain it properly:
• Be factual and objective: Avoid speculation or overly emotional language. Focus on who said what, when, and where.
• Date entries accurately: Record events as soon as possible after they occur to preserve accuracy.
• Keep it private: A personal work journal should be maintained outside the workplace and not stored on employer devices or servers.
• Avoid altering entries: Retroactively editing entries can damage credibility. If you need to clarify or correct something, make a new entry and note the change transparently.
Limitations and Considerations
While journals can be helpful, they are not a silver bullet. Courts will weigh the credibility and context of journal entries, and opposing counsel may challenge their authenticity or accuracy. Additionally, if a case proceeds to litigation, the journal may be discoverable, meaning it could be shared with the employer and their legal team.
Employees should also be aware that journal content can be scrutinized. Overly dramatic or inconsistent entries may undercut the case, while consistent and measured notes can enhance credibility.
Conclusion
In employment discrimination cases in Washington State, a personal work journal can be a powerful supplement to other forms of evidence. When maintained properly, it can help employees establish a pattern of discriminatory conduct, support their testimony, and navigate the complex litigation process with more confidence.
For anyone considering legal action based on workplace discrimination, it’s wise to consult an experienced employment attorney early—and to start documenting concerns thoughtfully and consistently.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
Does the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) enforce pre-litigation settlement caps? 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
Settling Employment Discrimination Claims: EEOC and WSHRC Settlement Caps
People who experience workplace discrimination often have the option to address their claims through federal or state agencies before filing a lawsuit.
NOTE: Individuals pursuing claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must first exhaust the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOCs) administrative prerequisites before filing suit in court — this is mandatory, not optional.
In Washington State, two main agencies that handle these matters are the EEOC and the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC), which enforces state-level protections. A crucial question for those considering settlement through these agencies is whether any financial limits apply to the amount they can recover. The sections below take a closer look at whether such settlement caps exist in either forum.
1. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Settlement Cap
The EEOC* plays a crucial role in handling discrimination claims under federal laws, including Title VII. It investigates claims of discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions, transgender status, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information
In terms of settlement, the EEOC does not impose a specific dollar cap for settlements that occur during its investigation or conciliation process. Instead, the agency facilitates settlement discussions between the claimant (charging party) and the employer (respondent). The settlement amount is generally determined through negotiation and mutual agreement between both parties, with the goal of resolving the dispute efficiently without proceeding to litigation.
However, there are guidelines that could influence the settlement amount:
Back Pay and Front Pay: Settlements may include financial compensation for lost wages (back pay) or future lost wages (front pay), depending on the circumstances of the case.
Compensatory Damages: Claimants may be eligible for compensatory damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, and other non-economic losses. These damages are capped depending on the size of the employer’s business, as prescribed by the Civil Rights Act. See Punitive Damages, below.
Punitive Damages: Title VII allows for the recovery of punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination with malice or reckless indifference. Such recoveries are–similar to compensatory damages–capped depending on the size of the employer’s business.
NOTE: Limits on Compensatory & Punitive Damages. There are limits on the amount of compensatory and punitive damages a person can recover. These limits vary depending on the size of the employer:
• For employers with 15-100 employees, the limit is $50,000.
• For employers with 101-200 employees, the limit is $100,000.
• For employers with 201-500 employees, the limit is $200,000.
• For employers with more than 500 employees, the limit is $300,000.
Attorney’s Fees, Expert Witness Fees, and Court Costs: A victim of discrimination also may be able to recover attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and court costs.
While the EEOC does not impose a strict cap, settlement amounts in cases that the EEOC resolves are often guided by the circumstances of the claim and the financial situation of the employer.
2. Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) Settlement Cap
One notable difference, however, is that the WSHRC has specific caps for pain and suffering awards by administrative law judges (ALJ) under the WLAD. The maximum amount of damages that an appointed ALJ can award to an employment-discrimination claimant for humiliation and mental suffering is $20,000. See RCW 49.60.250(5)*. Moreover, based on my previous communications the WSHRC, even if the parties settle the claim before appointment of an ALJ, the maximum settlement amount a claimant can recover for pain and suffering in a WSHRC-administered settlement remains $20,000. This cap is part of the administrative process under the WLAD and applies specifically to settlements facilitated by the WSHRC before arbitration or filing a lawsuit.
That said, claimants who seek settlements beyond this $20,000 cap still have options. They can pursue private settlements outside of the WSHRC administrative process. In these cases, the parties involved may agree to a settlement that exceeds the WSHRC cap. However–based on my experience–the WSHRC will likely require the parties to report any such settlement to the WSHRC if the claims are still under active investigation by the agency. This reporting requirement ensures that the WSHRC is aware of the resolution, even if it falls outside the agency’s prescribed settlement limits.
Conclusion
Both the U.S. EEOC and the WSHRC provide opportunities for claimants to resolve employment discrimination disputes without proceeding to litigation, but the processes differ in key respects. While the EEOC does not impose a specific settlement dollar cap, settlements are guided by the nature of the claim and the employer’s financial capacity. In contrast, the WSHRC does have a cap for pain and suffering settlements, limiting them to $20,000 under the Washington Law Against Discrimination; claimants seeking to exceed this amount may still pursue private settlements, provided they comply with reporting requirements if the WSHRC is involved in the investigation.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
WHY SOME EMPLOYERS UNLAWFULLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST EMPLOYEES
Why do some employers unlawfully discriminate against their employees? Here’s my point of view.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
Why Employers Might Unlawfully Discriminate Against Their Employees — And Why It Matters
In the modern workplace, anti-discrimination laws have made significant strides in protecting individuals from unfair treatment based on race, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, and other protected characteristics. Despite this progress, workplace discrimination remains a persistent issue. Understanding why employers might engage in discriminatory practices — even in violation of clear legal standards — is critical for legal professionals, HR personnel, and compliance officers alike.
1. Implicit Bias and Stereotyping
Discrimination in the workplace often stems not from overt prejudice, but from unconscious biases—automatic associations and assumptions that can shape decisions without the decision-maker even realizing it. For instance, a supervisor might instinctively view men as more suitable for leadership roles or assume that older employees struggle with new technology. Though these biases may never be expressed aloud, they can influence important employment outcomes such as hiring, promotions, and disciplinary actions, often disadvantaging individuals in legally protected groups.
Legal Considerations:
Courts are increasingly acknowledging the role of implicit bias in employment discrimination cases, especially where patterns of unequal treatment or adverse impact are evident. Under laws like the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), evidence of unconscious bias can support claims of unlawful discrimination—even in the absence of direct or intentional misconduct.
2. Cultural “Fit” and the Homogeneity Trap
Hiring for “cultural fit” is a popular concept in many organizations, especially startups and smaller companies. However, this term can become a euphemism for maintaining homogeneity. Employers may, intentionally or not, exclude candidates who don’t mirror the dominant demographics or communication styles of existing teams.
While the desire for team cohesion is understandable, when “fit” becomes a code word for race, age, gender similarity, or other protected class, the legal exposure increases. Courts and agencies like the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) and U.S. EEOC scrutinize these practices for violation of associated employment-discrimination laws.
3. Economic Rationalizations
Some employers make decisions based on economic stereotypes — for example, assuming women are more likely to take maternity leave, or older workers will demand higher salaries or retire soon. These assumptions can result in discrimination cloaked in cost-saving rhetoric.
Another subtle driver of discrimination is the perceived preference of customers, clients, or even coworkers. For instance, an employer might believe that customers prefer to be served by younger, able-bodied, or white employees — and act accordingly.
Both the WLAD and associated Federal law is clear: employers cannot base employment decisions on customer preferences if those preferences reflect discriminatory bias based on protected class. The WLAD, Title VII, and related statutes do not carve out exceptions for such customer prejudices, no matter how commercially persuasive they might seem.
5. Inadequate Training and Compliance Infrastructure
In some cases, discrimination arises from negligence rather than malice. Employers may lack proper training, or they may fail to implement strong compliance programs that prevent bias from creeping into decision-making. This lack of oversight can result in systematic discrimination that violates state laws — even when no single person intends harm.
The legal lesson is clear: intent is not always required for liability. Under state-based disparate impact theories, a neutral policy or practice that disproportionately harms a protected class can trigger legal consequences, regardless of motive.
6. Combating Discrimination Proactively
For employers, the risk of litigation, reputational damage, and financial penalties should be motivation enough to root out discriminatory practices. For attorneys and compliance professionals, understanding these underlying causes can guide better training, policy design, and internal investigations.
Proactive strategies include but are not limited to:
• Mandatory implicit bias training for hiring managers; • Structured interviews and standardized evaluations; • Diversity audits and statistical monitoring; • Clear, well-enforced anti-discrimination policies.
Conclusion
Discrimination against protected classes is rarely as blatant as it once was — but it is no less real. Whether driven by unconscious bias, flawed business logic, or misplaced priorities, discriminatory practices persist in ways that can expose employers to serious legal risk. Legal professionals must remain vigilant, not only in litigating claims but also in helping organizations recognize and eliminate the subtle forces that sustain inequality.
And for those Washington State employers that fail to heed these warnings: You may find me as opposing counsel in a lawsuit against your organization.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
In Washington State, what are settlement agreements within the context of employment-law 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
Finality Through Compromise: The Role of Settlement Agreements in Employment Law
In employment disputes—often emotionally charged and legally complex—settlement agreements provide a structured and efficient path toward resolution. These agreements, rooted in the well-established principles of contract law, allow employers and employees to avoid the uncertainty and expense of protracted litigation. Courts in Washington, and across the country, consistently support settlements as essential tools for resolving workplace disputes with finality and fairness.
Settlement Agreements: Contracts with Legal Weight
Settlement agreements in the employment context function as legally enforceable contracts and are governed by traditional contract principles—requiring offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent. See Elgiadi v. Wash. State Univ. Spokane, 519 P.3d 939, 941 (Wash. App. 2022) (citing Stottlemyre v. Reed, 35 Wn. App. 169, 171, 665 P.2d 1383 (1983)).
Whether resolving a wrongful termination claim, a wage dispute, or allegations of workplace discrimination, the settlement process formalizes the parties’ agreement to dismiss legal claims in exchange for agreed-upon terms. Once executed, these contracts carry binding legal effect, providing closure and clarity for both employer and employee.
Mutual Concessions: The Nature of Employment Settlements
Employment settlements, like all compromises, involve mutual concessions with parties typically accepting less than what they believe they are entitled to in order to avoid the risks and burdens of litigation. See id. (citing Harding v. Will, 81 Wn.2d 132, 138, 500 P.2d 91 (1972); Strozier v. General Motors Corp., 635 F.2d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 1981); 15B AM. JUR. 2D COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS § 1 (2021)).
This is particularly true in employment disputes, where the cost of litigation, the unpredictability of jury verdicts, and the reputational stakes for both parties can be substantial. Employees may choose to settle for a guaranteed financial payment rather than risk a less favorable outcome at trial. Employers, in turn, often settle to avoid continued liability, disruption to business operations, and additional legal fees. See id. at 942.
A Strong Public Policy Favoring Settlement
Washington courts have repeatedly emphasized the strong public policy favoring settlements “and the finality they afford.” Id. at 941 (citingHaller v. Wallis, 89 Wash.2d 539, 544, 573 P.2d 1302 (1978)). Accordingly, “Washington jurisprudence recognizes a strong public policy encouraging settlements.” Id. at 941-42 (citingAm. Safety Cas. Ins. Co. v. City of Olympia, 162 Wash.2d 762, 772, 174 P.3d 54 (2007); City of Seattle v. Blume, 134 Wash.2d 243, 258, 947 P.2d 223 (1997); Seafirst Ctr. Ltd. P’ship v. Erickson, 127 Wash.2d 355, 366, 898 P.2d 299 (1995)).
In the employment context, this policy promotes quicker resolution of disputes, helping both parties move forward. It also supports a more cooperative legal environment—one that encourages dialogue and resolution rather than extended confrontation. Ultimately, settlements benefit the legal system by conserving judicial resources and providing certainty to the parties involved.
Finality: The Cornerstone of Settlement
A key aspect of any employment settlement agreement is finality. As emphasized in Haller v. Wallis, 89 Wash.2d at 544, 573 P.2d 1302, the legal system disfavors attempts to reopen resolved disputes. Once a settlement is reached and claims are released, the employer should be protected from further liability regarding the same issues.
This principle is especially important for employers, who often settle in order to eliminate the ongoing costs and uncertainties of litigation. Allowing a plaintiff to revisit settled claims would defeat the entire purpose of compromise, exposing employers to renewed legal exposure after paying to resolve the matter.
To ensure finality, settlement agreements in employment cases typically include comprehensive release of claims clauses. These provisions explicitly bar the employee from bringing future claims arising out of the same employment relationship or incident—giving employers the legal certainty they need to close the book on the dispute.
Conclusion
In employment law, where legal claims can carry high financial and reputational stakes, settlement agreements offer a vital path to resolution. Governed by contract principles and bolstered by strong public policy, these agreements serve both employer and employee by delivering certainty, efficiency, and finality. For employers and counsel alike, understanding the enforceability and purpose of settlement agreements is essential in navigating the complex world of workplace disputes.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
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
CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS — GR 14.1
In the legal world, not all opinions are created equal—especially when it comes to citing them in court. Washington’s General Rule (GR) 14.1* outlines how lawyers and judges can (and can’t) use unpublished opinions, both from Washington and other jurisdictions. The relevant rule states as follows:
GR 14.1
CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS
(a)Washington Court of Appeals. Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are those opinions not published in the Washington Appellate Reports. Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals have no precedential value and are not binding on any court. However, unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals filed on or after March 1, 2013, may be cited as nonbinding authorities, if identified as such by the citing party, and may be accorded such persuasive value as the court deems appropriate.
(b)Other Jurisdictions. A party may cite as an authority an opinion designated “unpublished,” “not for publication,” “non-precedential,” “not precedent,” or the like that has been issued by any court from a jurisdiction other than Washington state, only if citation to that opinion is permitted under the law of the jurisdiction of the issuing court.
(c)Citation of Unpublished Opinions in Subsequent Opinions. Washington appellate courts should not, unless necessary for a reasoned decision, cite or discuss unpublished opinions in their opinions.
(d)Copies of Unpublished Opinions. The party citing an unpublished opinion from a jurisdiction other than Washington shall file and serve a copy of the opinion as an appendix to the pleading in which the authority is cited.
GR 14.1* (emphasis added). Here’s a quick breakdown of what this rule means.
What Are Unpublished Opinions?
In Washington, unpublished opinions from the Court of Appeals are those that aren’t published in the official Washington Appellate Reports. Traditionally, these opinions don’t carry any precedential weight, meaning they aren’t binding on future cases.
Can They Be Cited?
Yes, but with conditions. If the unpublished opinion was filed on or after March 1, 2013, it can be cited—but only as nonbinding authority. The person citing it must clearly label it as such. Courts may consider the opinion’s reasoning persuasive, but they’re not required to follow it.
What About Opinions from Other States?
Washington courts will accept citations to unpublished or non-precedential opinions from other jurisdictions only if the rules of that jurisdiction allow it. So, it’s important to check the laws of the originating court before citing.
Washington Courts Using Unpublished Opinions
Interestingly, Washington appellate courts generally avoid citing unpublished opinions themselves. They’re encouraged to do so only when it’s necessary for making a well-reasoned decision.
One Last Requirement
If you’re citing an unpublished opinion from outside Washington, you’ll need to include a copy of it as an appendix to your filing and properly serve the same. This ensures everyone involved has access to the full context of the case.
FINAL THOUGHTS
GR 14.1 strikes a balance: it allows legal professionals to reference unpublished opinions without giving them undue weight. It opens the door to persuasive arguments while preserving the integrity of Washington’s published case law.
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.
Under Washington State laws, may a person, firm, corporation or the state of Washington (including its political subdivisions or municipal corporations) require employees or prospective employees to take or be subjected to lie-detector tests as a condition of employment or continued employment? 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 STATE: THE LIE-DETECTOR LAW
Under Washington State law, it’s “unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or the state of Washington, its political subdivisions or municipal corporations to require, directly or indirectly, that any employee or prospective employee take or be subjected to any lie detector or similar tests as a condition of employment or continued employment[.]” RCW 49.44.120 (hereinafter, “Lie-Detector Law” or “Law“) (hyperlinks added). However, there are several limitations:
Limitation #1: The Lie-Detector Law does not “apply to persons making application for employment with any law enforcement agency or with the juvenile court services agency of any county, or to persons returning after a break of more than twenty-four consecutive months in service as a fully commissioned law enforcement officer[.]” Id.
Limitation #2: The Law does “not apply to either the initial application for employment or continued employment of persons who manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances as defined in chapter 69.50 RCW, or to persons in sensitive positions directly involving national security.” RCW 49.44.120.
Limitation #3: Nothing in the Law can “be construed to prohibit the use of psychological tests as defined in RCW 18.83.010.” RCW 49.44.120(2).
Limitation #4: Nothing in the Law “may be construed as limiting any statutory or common law rights of any person illegally denied employment or continued employment under this section for purposes of any civil action or injunctive relief.” RCW 49.44.120(5).
NOTE: The Lie-Detector Law defines the term “person” to include “any individual, firm, corporation, or agency or political subdivision of the state.” Id. Violations of the Law can lead to civil liability as well as criminal culpability.
CIVIL LIABILITY: REMEDIES
For civil actions based on violations of RCW 49.44.120, “the court may:
(1) Award a penalty in the amount of five hundred dollars to a prevailing employee or prospective employee in addition to any award of actual damages;
(2) Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing employee or prospective employee; and
(3) Pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, award any prevailing party against whom an action has been brought for a violation of RCW 49.44.120 reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause.
In addition to civil liability, persons violating the Lie-Detector Law are also guilty of a misdemeanor. RCW 49.44.120(3).
CONCLUSION
Washington State’s Lie-Detector Law protects both employees and prospective employees from invasive lie-detector tests used as a condition of employment or continued employment; however, there are several reasonable limitations.
Ultimately, violations of the Law can lead to both civil liability and/or criminal culpability. However, civil litigants should note that the court may award a prevailing defendant “reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause.” Proceed with caution.
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.
Under Washington State laws and regulations, how does the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) progress from complaint to conclusion when processing employment discrimination claims? 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
WSHRC: FROM COMPLAINT TO CONCLUSION
In Washington State, the protection of human rights is a fundamental aspect of ensuring equality and fair treatment for all individuals. The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) serves as a vital resource for individuals who believe they have experienced discrimination in various contexts, including employment, housing, and public accommodations, real estate and credit transactions, and insurance. Understanding the process of filing and handling complaints with the WSHRC is crucial for both complainants and respondents involved in these cases. This article will focus on employment discrimination.
I. Filing a Complaint with the WSHRC
1. Initiating the Process:
Complaints can be filed with the WSHRC through an intake call or an in-person interview. See Washington State Human Rights Commission Website, https://www.hum.wa.gov/employment (last visited 2/16/24). The Intake Unit evaluates the jurisdiction of the complaint and may proceed with an intake questionnaire if it falls within the WSHRC’s purview. See id.
NOTE: WSHRC Jurisdictional Criteria
(a) “Employer has at least 8 employees (does not include religious organizations.” Id. (hyperlink added).
(b) “Signed complaints need to be filed within 6 months of last date of alleged discrimination.” Id.
2. Submission of Intake Questionnaire:
Alternatively, individuals can print out and submit the online intake questionnaire. See id. It is essential to ensure that the intake questionnaire reaches the WSHRC within six months of the alleged discriminatory action. See id.
3. Response to Written Charge:
Upon review, individuals may receive a written charge to sign and return to the WSHRC. See id.
4. Assignment to Investigator:
Once the complaint is filed, it is assigned to an investigator for further examination. See id.
II. Responsibilities of Employers Upon Receiving Notice
1. Timely Response:
Employers must send a written response to the charge within 15 days of receiving notice. See id.
2. Position Statement:
They should articulate their position on the alleged unfair actions. See id.
3. Documentation:
Providing relevant documentation to support their response is imperative. See id.
4. Witness Information:
Employers should furnish witness names and contact information as part of the investigative process. See id.
III. Conducting the Investigation
1. Neutral Fact-Finding:
The WSHRC serves as a neutral fact-finder during investigations, tasked with gathering evidence to determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the law has occurred. This may involve interviewing witnesses and reviewing pertinent documents. See id.
The respondent can offer non-discriminatory reasons for the actions in question. See id.
3. Additional Evidence:
The burden of proof shifts back to the complainant to provide further information connecting the harm to the protected class. See id.
4. Standard of Proof:
For a finding of reasonable cause, the preponderance of evidence must indicate that discrimination occurred. See id.
V. Conclusion of the Investigation
1. Recommendation to Commissioners:
Following the completion of the investigation, WSHRC staff presents a recommendation to the Commissioners. See id.
2. NO FINDING OF DISCRIMINATION
“If the WSHRC finds no discrimination (no reasonable cause), both parties are contacted with that finding.” Id.
3. Finding of Discrimination:
If the WSHRC determines that illegal discrimination has occurred (reasonable cause), efforts are made to reach a voluntary agreement between the parties. If unsuccessful, the complaint may proceed to a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who can impose significant penalties. See id.
CONCLUSION
Navigating the process of filing and handling human rights complaints in Washington State requires adherence to specific procedures and responsibilities outlined by the WSHRC. By understanding these guidelines, both complainants and respondents can engage effectively in the resolution process, ultimately contributing to the promotion of equality and justice within the state.
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
Under Washington State workers’ compensation laws, may an employer discriminate against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim? 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
THE WASHINGTON INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE ACT (“ACT”) AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS: DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED
“Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act provides that ‘[n]o employer may discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed or communicated to the employer an intent to file a claim for compensation or exercises any rights provided under this title.'” Robel v. Roundup Corporation, 148 Wn.2d 35, 48-49 (Wash 2002) (citing RCW 51.48.025(1)) (alteration in original) (emphasis added).
The relevant law, RCW 51.48.025(1), states as follows:
Retaliation by employer prohibited—Investigation—Remedies.
(1) No employer may discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed or communicated to the employer an intent to file a claim for compensation or exercises any rights provided under this title. However, nothing in this section prevents an employer from taking any action against a worker for other reasons including, but not limited to, the worker’s failure to observe health or safety standards adopted by the employer, or the frequency or nature of the worker’s job-related accidents.
Id. (emphasis added).
THE COMPLAINT PROCESS
Under the Act, “[a]ny employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by an employer in violation of this section may file a complaint with the director alleging discrimination within ninety days of the date of the alleged violation.” RCW 51.48.025(2) (emphasis added). In this case, the term “‘Director’ means the director of labor and industries.” RCW 51.08.060.
Accordingly, “[u]pon receipt of such complaint, the director shall cause an investigation to be made as the director deems appropriate. Within ninety days of the receipt of a complaint filed under this section, the director shall notify the complainant of his or her determination.” Id.
“If upon such investigation, it is determined that this section has been violated, the director shall bring an action in the superior court of the county in which the violation is alleged to have occurred.” Id.
RIGHT OF PRIVATE ACTION — ADDITIONAL LEGAL THEORIES
However, “[i]f the director determines that this section has not been violated, the employee may institute the action on his or her own behalf.” RCW 51.48.025(3).
IMPORTANT: Pursuant to other laws (e.g., The Washington Law Against Discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, WA State torts, etc.), additional legal theories may form the basis for relief depending on the circumstances of each case. Speak to a knowledgeable employment attorney to learn more.
REMEDIES
“In any action brought under this section, the superior court shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to restrain violations of subsection (1) of this section and to order all appropriate relief including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee with back pay.” RCW 51.48.025(4) (referring to RCW 51.48.025(1)).
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
SUING LOCAL GOVERNMENT — TORTIOUS CONDUCT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND THEIR AGENTS
In Washington State, the process and requirements for individuals to initiate legal proceedings against local (as opposed to state) government entities or their subdivisions are dictated by RCW 4.96*, known as the “Actions Against Political Subdivisions, Municipal and Quasi-Municipal Corporations” statute — or, simply, the “local government tort claim filing statute.”
This legislation details the procedures for filing claims against political subdivisions and municipal bodies–such as counties, cities, towns, special districts, municipal corporations as defined in RCW 39.50.010*, quasi-municipal corporations, any joint municipal utility services authorities, any entities created by public agencies under RCW 39.34.030*, or public hospitals–ensuring that these actions are handled with transparency and fairness while safeguarding public entities from excessive legal challenges.
THE RELEVANT LAW — RCW 4.96.010
The relevant law states as follows:
RCW 4.96.010
Tortious conduct of local governmental entities—Liability for damages.
(1) All local governmental entities, whether acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of their tortious conduct, or the tortious conduct of their past or present officers, employees, or volunteers while performing or in good faith purporting to perform their official duties, to the same extent as if they were a private person or corporation. Filing a claim for damages within the time allowed by law shall be a condition precedent to the commencement of any action claiming damages. The laws specifying the content for such claims shall be liberally construed so that substantial compliance therewith will be deemed satisfactory.
(2) Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, for the purposes of this chapter, “local governmental entity” means a county, city, town, special district, municipal corporation as defined in RCW 39.50.010*, quasi-municipal corporation, any joint municipal utility services authority, any entity created by public agencies under RCW 39.34.030*, or public hospital.
(3) For the purposes of this chapter, “volunteer” is defined according to RCW 51.12.035*.
Presentment and filing requirements — RCW 4.96.020
The associated “Presentment and Filing” section (RCW 4.96.020*) outlines the following procedures for filing claims for damages against local governmental entities, their officers, employees, or volunteers acting in an official capacity, specifically in cases involving tortious conduct.
1. Applicability of the Law — RCW 4.96.020(1)-(2)*:
The provisions apply to all claims for damages against local governmental entities and their officials. The governing body of each entity must appoint an agent to receive claims for damages, and this agent’s identity and contact information must be recorded with the county auditor.
Claims must be submitted to the designated agent within the applicable statute of limitations. Claims are considered presented when they are delivered in person or “received by the agent by regular mail, registered mail, or certified mail, with return receipt requested, to the agent or other person designated to accept delivery at the agent’s office.” Id. If a local government entity fails to meet these requirements, it forfeits the right to raise certain defenses.
3. Claim Form Requirements — RCW 4.96.020(3)(a)-(b)*:
Starting from July 26, 2009, claims must be filed using a standard tort claim form, which is available on the Department of Enterprise Services’ (Office of Risk Management) website, except as allowed under (c) of this subsection.. The form must include:
(a) The claimant’s name, contact information, and date of birth.
(b) A description of the incident, injury, and the circumstances surrounding it.
(c) Details such as the time and place of the incident, names of involved individuals, and the amount of damages claimed.
(d) The claimant’s current residence at the time the claim arose and when the claim is presented.
The claim must be signed by the claimant or their authorized representative.
4. Availability of Forms and Instructions — RCW 4.96.020(3)(c), (e)*:
Local entities are required to make the standard form and instructions available and the name, address, and business hours of the agent of the local governmental entity.
“If a local governmental entity chooses to also make available its own tort claim form in lieu of the standard tort claim form, the form:
(i) May require additional information beyond what is specified under this section, but the local governmental entity may not deny a claim because of the claimant’s failure to provide that additional information[.]
(ii) Must not require the claimant’s social security number; and
(iii) Must include instructions on how the form is to be presented and the name, address, and business hours of the agent of the local governmental entity appointed to receive the claim.
RCW 4.96.020(c)*. “Presenting either the standard tort claim form or the local government tort claim form satisfies the requirements of this chapter*.” RCW 4.96.020(e)* (hyperlink added).
5. Waiver for Incorrect Forms — RCW 4.96.020(3)(d)*:
If the local entity’s form does not comply with the requirements or lists the wrong agent, the entity waives any defense related to those issues, including improper claim presentation or missing information.
The amount of damages specified on the claim form is not admissible at trial.
7. Waiting Period Before Filing Suit — RCW 4.96.020(4)*:
A claimant cannot file a lawsuit for tortious conduct against any local governmental entity, or against any local governmental entity’s officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such capacity, until at least 60 calendar days after properly presenting the claim to the agent. During this 60-day period, the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit is tolled (i.e., suspended). If a lawsuit is filed within five court days after this period, it is considered to have been filed on the first day after the 60-day waiting period.
“With respect to the content of claims under this section and all procedural requirements in this section, this section must be liberally construed so that substantial compliance will be deemed satisfactory.” Id.
CONCLUSION
In Washington State, the local government tort-claim filing statute (i.e., RCW 4.96*) provides a structured process for filing tort claims against local governments in Washington State, with clear instructions regarding the necessary forms, deadlines, and requirements. It emphasizes a liberal approach to compliance to ensure that valid claims are not dismissed due to minor procedural issues.
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
DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE REASONING
Logic is an indispensable tool for lawyers in the practice of law. Deductive and inductive reasoning are forms of logic. Both forms must comply with strict principles of validity.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING (general to specific)
Deductive reasoning is a way of thinking that starts with a general statement or idea and works its way down to a specific conclusion. In simple terms, it’s like using a rule to figure out something particular. For example, if you know that all dogs are mammals (general rule/idea) and you see an animal that is a dog (specific case), you can conclude that this animal is a mammal.
Lawyers use deductive reasoning every day. They take the facts of a case and apply the law to those facts. Here’s how it works:
1. General Principle (Law): A law or rule that applies to a situation. For instance, “Anyone who steals can be charged with theft.”
2. Specific Facts (Case Details): The details of the case, like “John was caught taking something from a store without paying.”
3. Conclusion: By applying the law to the facts, a lawyer can conclude that John has ostensibly broken the law and may face theft charges.
INDUCTIVE REASONING (specific to general)
Lawyers are problem-solvers, and another tool they often use is inductive reasoning. This type of reasoning allows them to make decisions and form conclusions based on specific facts or examples.
Inductive reasoning is when a lawyer looks at a few specific facts or observations and then uses them to form a general conclusion. For example, if a lawyer sees that certain evidence has helped win several similar cases, they may decide it could help in their current case too.
Inductive reasoning is crucial for lawyers because it helps them make decisions based on real-life examples and facts. By recognizing patterns and drawing conclusions, lawyers can create better strategies, strengthen their arguments, and even anticipate challenges during a case.
CONCLUSION
Deductive reasoning is an essential tool for lawyers. It helps them think logically, structure their arguments, and present their case in a way that’s easy for judges and juries to understand. By applying the law to the facts of a case, lawyers can draw conclusions that support their argument, making it easier to win cases and ensure justice is served. Whether they are defending a client or prosecuting a crime, deductive reasoning is the key to turning the law into real-world outcomes.
In the practice of law, inductive reasoning is also a valuable tool. It helps lawyers build strong arguments by examining facts, analyzing patterns, and predicting outcomes. By using inductive reasoning, lawyers can make smarter decisions and more effectively represent their clients.
need help?
If you need legal help, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case; our law office litigates claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60, what are the sexual harassment and assault policy requirements for hotel, motel, retailer, and security guard entities, and property services contractors? 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
WA State’s Sexual Harassment and Assault Policy Requirements for Specific WA State Employers — Hotel, Motel, Retail, or Security Guard Entity, and Property Services Contractors
Washington State has long been at the forefront of promoting workplace equality and safety. One of the key provisions in this regard is RCW 49.60.515*, a statute within the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), which imposes specific responsibilities on the following employers–who employ an employee–to combat sexual harassment and assault:
» Hotel, Motel, Retail, and Security Guard Entities; and
» Property Services Contractors.
This provision aims to create safer work environments in sectors that may face heightened risks of such behaviors. Below is a breakdown of the law’s requirements and its impact on employers and employees.
1. Adopting a Sexual Harassment Policy (RCW 49.60.515(1)(a))
Under the law, every employer in the specified sectors is required to adopt a comprehensive sexual harassment policy. This policy must explicitly address how sexual harassment will be prevented, identified, and responded to in the workplace. The inclusion of this policy is an essential step in setting clear standards of behavior and ensuring that employees are aware of their rights and responsibilities.
For employers, having a well-defined sexual harassment policy provides guidance on what constitutes inappropriate behavior and how to handle complaints. This policy serves as a preventative measure and a tool for addressing complaints effectively when they arise.
2. Mandatory Training for Employees and Management (RCW 49.60.515(1)(b))
One of the core requirements of this provision is the mandatory training for managers, supervisors, and employees. The training aims to:
• Prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace
• Prevent sexual discrimination
• Educate employees about protections for those who report violations of state or federal laws, rules, or regulations
The training sessions ensure that employees at all levels are aware of the importance of maintaining a respectful and safe work environment. By providing this education, employers can foster a culture of accountability and respect. Additionally, the inclusion of protections for whistleblowers is essential for encouraging employees to report violations without fear of retaliation.
3. Resources for Employees (RCW 49.60.515(1)(c))
In addition to training, employers are required to provide their workforce with a list of resources for those who may experience or witness sexual harassment or assault. At a minimum, this resource list must include contact information for:
• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
• The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC)
• Local advocacy groups focused on preventing sexual harassment and sexual assault
These resources are critical for providing employees with the support and guidance they need to address harassment issues, report incidents, or seek external help if necessary.
4. Panic Buttons for Employees (RCW 49.60.515(1)(d))
In an effort to further enhance the safety of workers in potentially vulnerable situations, the statute mandates that employers in the specified industries provide a panic button to each employee. This panic button is a critical tool for immediate assistance in emergencies, allowing workers to quickly signal for help if they feel threatened or are in danger of harassment or assault.
For employers with fewer than 50 employees, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries* (L&I) is tasked with providing additional guidance on how this requirement will be applied. This provision does not extend to contracted security guard companies licensed under chapter 18.170* RCW, which have separate regulations in place.
5. Reporting and Documentation Requirements for Property Services Contractors (RCW 49.60.515(2))
Property services contractors, including janitorial companies, must adhere to specific reporting requirements. These include submitting the following information to the L&I:
• The date when the sexual harassment policy was adopted
• The number of managers, supervisors, and employees who have completed the mandated training
• The physical address of each work location where janitorial services are performed, along with details about the workforce and hours worked
These reporting measures ensure that contractors are in compliance with the law and provide valuable data for oversight. This information will be made available in aggregate form to the public, allowing for transparency and accountability.
6. Why This Law Matters
RCW 49.60.515* is designed to address specific vulnerabilities in industries where workers may be at higher risk of harassment or assault, such as hotels, motels, and retail spaces. By instituting preventive measures such as training, panic buttons, and clear policies, the law works to ensure that employees have the tools and protections needed to maintain a safe workplace.
Moreover, the law helps reinforce a broader commitment to workplace equality and safety in Washington State, which aligns with national efforts to curb sexual harassment and assault in the workplace.
7. the statutory provision — rcw 49.60.515
The relevant WLAD statutory provision states as follows:
RCW 49.60.515
Sexual harassment and assault policy—Adoption of by hotel, motel, retail, or security guard entity, or property services contractors—Requirements.
(1) Every hotel, motel, retail, or security guard entity, or property services contractor, who employs an employee, must:
(a) Adopt a sexual harassment policy;
(b) Provide mandatory training to the employer’s managers, supervisors, and employees to:
(i) Prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace;
(ii) Prevent sexual discrimination in the workplace; and
(iii) Educate the employer’s workforce regarding protection for employees who report violations of a state or federal law, rule, or regulation;
(c) Provide a list of resources for the employer’s employees to utilize. At a minimum, the resources must include contact information of the equal employment opportunity commission, the Washington state human rights commission, and local advocacy groups focused on preventing sexual harassment and sexual assault; and
(d) Provide a panic button to each employee. The department must publish advice and guidance for employers with fifty or fewer employees relating to this subsection (1)(d). This subsection (1)(d) does not apply to contracted security guard companies licensed under chapter 18.170* RCW.
(2)(a) A property services contractor shall submit the following to the department on a form or in a manner determined by the department:
(i) The date of adoption of the sexual harassment policy required in subsection (1)(a) of this section;
(ii) The number of managers, supervisors, and employees trained as required by subsection (1)(b) of this section; and
(iii) The physical address of the work location or locations at which janitorial services are provided by workers of the property services contractor, and for each location: (A) The total number of workers or contractors of the property services contractor who perform janitorial services; and (B) the total hours worked.
(b) The department must make aggregate data submitted as required in this subsection (2) available upon request.
(c) The department may adopt rules to implement this subsection (2).
(3) For the purposes of this section:
(a) “Department” means the department of labor and industries.
(b) “Employee” means an individual who spends a majority of her or his working hours alone, or whose primary work responsibility involves working without another coworker present, and who is employed by an employer as a janitor, security guard, hotel or motel housekeeper, or room service attendant.
(c) “Employer” means any person, association, partnership, property services contractor, or public or private corporation, whether for-profit or not, who employs one or more persons.
(d) “Panic button” means an emergency contact device carried by an employee by which the employee may summon immediate on-scene assistance from another worker, a security guard, or a representative of the employer.
(e) “Property services contractor” means any person or entity that employs workers: (i) To perform labor for another person to provide commercial janitorial services; or (ii) on behalf of an employer to provide commercial janitorial services. “Property services contractor” does not mean the employment security department or individuals who perform labor under an agreement for exchanging their own labor or services with each other, provided the work is performed on land owned or leased by the individuals.
(f) “Security guard” means an individual who is principally employed as, or typically referred to as, a security officer or guard, regardless of whether the individual is employed by a private security company or a single employer or whether the individual is required to be licensed under chapter 18.170* RCW.
(4)(a) Hotels and motels with sixty or more rooms must meet the requirements of this section by January 1, 2020.
(b) All other employers identified in subsection (1) of this section must meet the requirements of this section by January 1, 2021.
The implementation of RCW 49.60.515 represents a significant step forward in ensuring that employers in high-risk industries take proactive measures to prevent sexual harassment and assault. By requiring sexual harassment policies, training, resources, panic buttons, and regular reporting, this law aims to create safer, more equitable work environments across Washington State. Employers in the specified sectors must familiarize themselves with these requirements to ensure compliance and to create a culture of safety and respect within their organizations. For employees, this law serves as an important safeguard, providing them with the resources and support necessary to navigate and report harassment if it arises.
READ MORE
We invite you to read more of our related blog articles:
If you need legal help, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case; our law office litigates claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
WLAD — LIABILITY FOR KILLING OR INJURING DOG GUIDE OR SERVICE ANIMAL
In Washington State, the rights of individuals with disabilities are protected under a variety of laws, including those governing the treatment of dog guides and service animals. One key WLAD provision is RCW 49.60.370*, which outlines the penalties and remedies for the killing or injury of such animals.
Under this law, if a person negligently or maliciously kills or injures a dog guide or service animal, they are liable for a penalty of $1,000, which must be paid to the user of the animal. This penalty is in addition to any other civil or criminal penalties that may apply. Not only does this law provide financial compensation for the user of the animal, but it also enables the recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if legal action is required.
Importantly, RCW 49.60.370* clarifies that the Washington State Human Rights Commission has no duty to investigate incidents of negligent or malicious acts against a dog guide or service animal. This means that individuals seeking justice under this statute must take legal action themselves to pursue civil remedies.
THE BLACK-LETTER LAW — RCW 49.60.370
The relevant WLAD section states as follows:
RCW 49.60.370
Liability for killing or injuring dog guide or service animal—Penalty in addition to other remedies or penalties—Recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs—No duty to investigate.
(1) A person who negligently or maliciously kills or injures a dog guide or service animal is liable for a penalty of one thousand dollars, to be paid to the user of the animal. The penalty shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any other remedies or penalties, civil or criminal, provided by law.
(2) A user or owner of a dog guide or service animal, whose animal is negligently or maliciously injured or killed, is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in pursuing any civil remedy.
(3) The commission has no duty to investigate any negligent or malicious acts referred to under this section.
For employers, this law reinforces the need for a respectful and inclusive environment for employees who rely on service animals. It’s crucial that workplace policies support the safety and well-being of both employees and their service animals or guide dogs. In doing so, employers not only comply with the law but also foster a more inclusive and supportive workplace culture. By understanding and respecting the legal rights of employees with disabilities and their service animals and guide dogs, businesses can ensure they provide an environment that is safe, fair, and legally compliant.
Under Washington State laws, what is the doctrine of promissory estoppel? 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 DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is based upon the “principle that a promise made without consideration may nonetheless be enforced to prevent injustice if the promisor should have reasonably expected the promisee to rely on the promise and if the promisee did actually rely on the promise to the promisee’s detriment.” Black’s Law Dictionary 591 (8th ed. 2004). Accordingly, to establish a viable claim of promissory estoppel, the plaintiff must show:
(1) a promise which
(2) the promisor should reasonably expect to cause the promisee to change his position and
(3) which does cause the promisee to change his position
(4) justifiably relying upon the promise, in such a manner that
(5) injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.
Chen v. State, 86 Wn.App. 183, 194 n.1 (Div. 2 1997), petition denied, 133 Wn.2d 1020, 948 P.2d 387 (1997) (citing Havens v. C & D Plastics, Inc., 124 Wash.2d 158, 172, 876 P.2d 435 (1994), quoting Klinke v. Famous Recipe Fried Chicken, Inc., 94 Wash.2d 255, 259 n. 2, 616 P.2d 644 (1980)) (emphasis added).
THE “PROMISE” REQUIREMENT
“Promissory estoppel requires the existence of a promise.” Id. (citing Havens, 124 Wash.2d at 172, 876 P.2d 435) (hyperlink added). “A promise is defined as ‘a manifestation of intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified way, so made as to justify a promisee in understanding that a commitment has been made.'” Id. (citing Havens, 124 Wash.2d at 172, 876 P.2d 435 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 2(1))).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the doctrine of promissory estoppel serves as a vital legal principle that ensures fairness and prevents unjust outcomes when a promise, lacking formal consideration, leads a promisee to alter their position based on that promise. By establishing specific criteria—including the existence of a promise, reasonable reliance, and the necessity of enforcement to avert injustice—this doctrine safeguards individuals from detrimental reliance on assurances that may otherwise go unfulfilled. As courts continue to interpret and apply this doctrine, it underscores the importance of honoring commitments in both personal and commercial contexts, fostering trust and accountability in our interactions.
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.
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
THE TORT OF OUTRAGE (ALSO KNOWN AS INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which remedies may be obtained. The tort of outrage is one type of tort (also known as intentional infliction of emotional distress). It is defined under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, as follows:
(1) One who by extreme and outrageousconduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.
(2) Where such conduct is directed at a third person, the actor is subject to liability if he intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress
(a) to a member of such person’s immediate family who is present at the time, whether or not such distress results in bodily harm, or
(b) to any other person who is present at the time, if such distress results in bodily harm.”
RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY ACTION & THE TORT OF OUTRAGE
Racially discriminatory action can form the basis for a claim of outrage. According to the Washington State Supreme Court:
In Browning v. Slenderella Systems, 54 Wash.2d 440, 341 P.2d 859 (1959), we held recovery could be premised upon tort liability for emotional distress, unaccompanied by any physical injury where the victim was injured by racially discriminatory action.
Id.* at 739, 565 P.2d 1173 (emphasis added). Within the context of employment discrimination, positions of authority are significant when evaluating associated claims based on the tort of outrage.
Positions of authority
“When one in a position of authority, actual or apparent, over another has allegedly made racial slurs and jokes and comments, this abusive conduct gives added impetus to the claim of outrageous behavior.” Contreras*, 88 Wn.2d at 741, 565 P.2d 1173 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 comment e). Thus, “[t]he relationship between the parties is a significant factor in determining whether liability should be imposed.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I believe racially discriminatory actions in employment can form the basis for the tort of outrage. The tort of outrage, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, is a crucial legal framework for addressing severe emotional harm caused by extreme and outrageous conduct. Defined under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, this tort highlights the accountability of individuals whose actions lead to significant emotional distress, even in the absence of physical injury.
Notably, racially discriminatory actions can serve as a foundation for such claims, as established by Washington case law. Furthermore, the dynamics of authority between the parties play a vital role in evaluating these claims, emphasizing that abusive behavior from those in positions of power can significantly exacerbate the impact of the distress. Depending on the circumstances of each case, understanding these elements may be useful for adequately addressing the complexities of emotional distress claims in civil law.
READ MORE OF OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our blog articles concerning this topic (for purposes of this section, “IIED” means “intentional infliction of emotional distress” or “tort of outrage”):
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
CAT’S PAW THEORY OF LIABILITY — SUBORDINATE BIAS LIABILITY
In Washington State, the “cat’s paw” theory of liability is consistent with the law on subordinate bias liability. SeeBoyd v. State*, 187 Wn.App. 1, 20, 349 P.3d 864 (Div. 2 2015). “Under the cat’s paw theory, the animus of a non-decision-maker who has a singular influence may be imputed to the decision-maker.” Id.* at 21 n.1 (citing Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011)).
THE GENERAL RULE
The general rule is as follows:
[I]f a supervisor* performs an act motivated by … animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable.
Id.* at 20 (citing Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 1194, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011) (footnote omitted)) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis and hyperlink added). Note: the term proximate cause is undefined.
PROXIMATE CAUSE
“Under Washington law, in order for the act to be a proximate cause, it must be a substantial factor.” Id.* (citing City of Vancouver v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 180 Wn.App. 333, 356, 325 P.3d 213 (2014) (“a complainant seeking to use the subordinate bias theory of liability must show that the subordinate’s animus was a substantial factor in the decision”)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS & CAUSATION
Oftentimes, the employer-defendant under a cat’s paw theory of liability will claim that it conducted an “independent investigation” and found an unrelated basis for the adverse employment actions upon which the plaintiff-employee seeks recourse. In such a case, employers will typically argue that the so-called independent investigation was a supervening cause of any retaliatory animus. Nevertheless: “[A]n independent investigation does not necessarily relieve the employer of liability for an adverse employment action.” Id.* (citing Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011)).
If the independent investigation “relies on facts provided by the biased supervisor—as is necessary in any case of cat’s-paw liability—then the employer (either directly or through the ultimate decision maker) will have effectively delegated the factfinding portion of the investigation to the biased supervisor.” Id.* at 18. Accordingly, the plaintiff may have a firm basis to argue that a causal connection exists, depending on the evidence. See, e.g., id.*
However: “[I]f the employer’s investigation results in an adverse action for reasons unrelated to the supervisor’s original biased action … then the employer will not be liable.” Id.* at 18 (citing Staub, 131 S.Ct. at 1193) (alteration in original).
ORIGINS OF CAT’S PAW THEORY OF LIABILITY
“The term ‘cat’s paw’ originated in the fable, ‘The Monkey and the Cat,’ by Jean de La Fontaine[:]
As told in the fable, the monkey wanted some chestnuts that were roasting in a fire. Unwilling to burn himself in the fire, the monkey convinced the cat to retrieve the chestnuts for him. As the cat carefully scooped the chestnuts from the fire with his paw, the monkey gobbled them up. By the time the serving wench caught the two thieves, no chestnuts were left for the unhappy cat.
Id.* at 21 n.1 (citing Julie M. Covel, The Supreme Court Writes A Fractured Fable of the Cat’s Paw Theory in Staub v. Proctor Hospital [Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011)], 51 Washburn L.J. 159, 159 (2011) (footnotes omitted)) (citation alteration in original).
THE CAT & THE MONKEY
“In the workplace, the cat represents an unbiased decision-maker who disciplines an employee unknowingly due to a supervisor’s bias, represented by the monkey.” Id.* (citing Edward G. Phillips, Staub v. Proctor Hospital: The Cat’s Paw Theory Gets Its Claws Sharpened, 47 Tenn. B.J. June, 2011, at 21).
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)
The WLAD is a potent statute enacted in 1949, and it covers a broad array of categories, including the following:
Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of civil rights.
A county, city, or town shall honor a request by a blind person or hearing impaired person not to be charged a fee to license his or her dog guide, or a request by a physically disabled person not to be charged a fee to license his or her service animal.
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
Under Washington State laws, what does the term “alternative dispute resolution” mean within the context of civil legal proceedings? Here’s my point of view.
(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy before proceeding.)
Advertisement
Introduction: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Alternative Dispute Resolution plays an important role in Washington State civil law, offering an innovative approach to conflict resolution outside the confines of traditional courtrooms. In this article, I will explore the meaning and importance of Washington State ADR, examining various methodologies and the crucial role it plays in facilitating efficient and harmonious resolutions to civil disputes.
Defining Alternative Dispute Resolution
Alternative Dispute Resolution refers to a range of processes designed to resolve legal conflicts without resorting to formal litigation. In Washington State, ADR encompasses methods such as mediation, arbitration, conciliation, and negotiation. These processes provide disputing parties with alternatives to the adversarial nature of traditional courtroom proceedings, promoting a collaborative and solution-oriented approach to conflict resolution.
Key ADR Methods in Washington State
Mediation:
Mediation employs a neutral third party, the mediator, to facilitate communication between disputing parties and guide them toward a mutually acceptable resolution.
Arbitration:
Arbitration involves presenting evidence and arguments to a neutral arbitrator, who then renders a binding decision.
Conciliation:
Conciliation engages a conciliator who assists parties in reaching a settlement by identifying common ground and fostering compromise. This method is commonly employed in Washington State for employment disputes, contractual disagreements, and interpersonal conflicts; the Washington State Human Rights Commission incorporates this process in its investigation of employment-discrimination complaints.
Significance of ADR in Washington State Civil Law
Efficiency and Timeliness:
ADR processes are recognized for their efficiency and timeliness, enabling parties to resolve disputes more expeditiously than through traditional litigation.
Cost-Effectiveness:
ADR can be a more cost-effective alternative to court proceedings, saving parties both time and financial resources.
Preserving Relationships:
Emphasizing collaboration and communication, ADR is particularly beneficial in preserving relationships strained by adversarial litigation.
Tailored Solutions:
ADR allows parties to craft customized solutions that better suit their unique circumstances, fostering a sense of ownership and satisfaction with the resolution.
Conclusion
In Washington State, the adoption of Alternative Dispute Resolution reflects a commitment to creating a legal environment that prioritizes efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and collaboration. As ADR continues to evolve and gain prominence, it underscores the state’s dedication to providing its citizens with diverse and effective means of resolving civil disputes outside the traditional courtroom setting.
Read Our Related Articles
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
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
HOW CAN AN EMPLOYMENT-LAW ATTORNEY HELP ME?
answer:
In today’s workforce, instances of workplace discrimination continue to cast shadows over the professional lives of numerous employees. Discrimination, spanning various factors such as age, citizenship or immigration status, creed/religion, disability, gender, national origin, opposition to a discriminatory practice, race, and sexual orientation, presents a formidable challenge to workplace equality. For individuals grappling with discrimination in their professional environments, seeking legal counsel emerges as a pivotal recourse. Here’s why consulting with an attorney holds paramount importance for employees encountering discrimination in the workplace:
1. Understanding Legal Rights
When faced with workplace discrimination, comprehending one’s legal rights becomes imperative. Employment laws exhibit nuances and intricacies, often varying from state to state. Consulting with an employment law attorney facilitates a comprehensive understanding of applicable legal frameworks, such as the Washington Law Against Discrimination*, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
2. Guidance Through the Process
The journey of initiating a discrimination claim can prove arduous, particularly for individuals unversed in legal proceedings. An attorney proficient in employment law extends invaluable guidance and support across every phase of the process. This encompasses assistance in evidence collection, completion of necessary paperwork, and adept representation during negotiations or court proceedings. Through their expertise, attorneys ensure the protection of clients’ rights and enhance the prospects of securing a favorable outcome.
3. Preservation of Evidence
Evidentiary support serves as the backbone of discrimination claims, pivotal in substantiating allegations. However, the task of gathering and preserving evidence presents challenges, particularly for employees still employed by the discriminating entity. Attorneys adept in employment law offer strategic counsel on evidence collection, encompassing documentation such as emails, performance evaluations, and witness statements. Moreover, they safeguard against potential retaliatory actions from the employer, crucial in bolstering the strength of the case.
4. Advocacy and Negotiation
Many discrimination cases witness resolution through negotiation or mediation, circumventing the need for protracted litigation. Here, the role of an attorney as an advocate assumes significance, advocating for clients’ interests and facilitating constructive dialogue with the opposing party. By elucidating available options and potential outcomes, attorneys empower clients to make informed decisions conducive to their objectives.
5. Pursuit of Compensation
Employees subjected to workplace discrimination may be entitled to compensation for various damages incurred, ranging from lost wages to emotional distress. Attorneys proficient in employment law conduct a thorough evaluation of clients’ claims, considering factors such as the severity of discrimination and its impact on professional trajectories. Subsequently, they navigate the legal terrain to secure rightful compensation through formal channels.
6. Holding Employers Accountable
Beyond seeking redress for individual grievances, pursuing legal action against discriminatory practices holds broader implications. By holding employers accountable for their actions, employees contribute to the collective endeavor of fostering equitable and inclusive work environments. Such actions serve as deterrents against future instances of discrimination, fostering a culture of accountability and respect within organizations.
CONCLUSION
In essence, the decision to seek legal counsel holds profound significance for employees grappling with workplace discrimination. Attorneys practicing employment law serve as steadfast allies, offering guidance, advocacy, and strategic representation. By harnessing legal avenues, employees not only assert their rights but also propel the ongoing fight for workplace equality and justice.
Under Washington State Superior Court Civil Rules (hereinafter, “CR”), what is the CR 26(i) conference requirement? 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
The CR 26(i) Conference Requirement (WA State)
In civil litigation in Washington State, adherence to procedural rules is paramount for the smooth functioning of the legal system and ensuring fairness for all parties involved. One such rule that holds significant importance concerning the discovery process is CR 26(i)*. In this article, I delve into what this rule entails and why it’s crucial for civil attorneys practicing in Washington State to understand and comply with it.
Understanding CR 26(i)
Requirement for Conference of Counsel
CR 26(i)* mandates that before presenting any motion or objection concerning Rules 26 through 37 (Depositions and Discovery) of the Washington State Rules of Superior Court*, counsel for the parties involved must confer with each other. This conference should be arranged at a mutually convenient time and can take place either in person or via telephone.
Good Faith Conferencing
The rule emphasizes the necessity of conducting the conference in good faith. This implies that the parties involved should engage in meaningful discussions aimed at resolving issues or reaching agreements regarding the motion or objection at hand.
Sanctions for Non-Compliance
Should the court determine that counsel for any party has willfully refused or failed to confer in good faith as required by CR 26(i)*, it holds the authority to apply sanctions as outlined under Rule 37(b)*. These sanctions can encompass a range of punitive measures, highlighting the seriousness with which the court views non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Certification Requirement
Importantly, any motion seeking an order to compel discovery or obtain protection must include certification from counsel affirming that the conference requirements of CR 26(i)* have been met. This certification serves as evidence of compliance and ensures transparency in the litigation process.
Importance of Compliance
Compliance with CR 26(i)* is not merely a procedural formality; it serves several crucial purposes:
1. Facilitating Communication
By necessitating conference among counsel, the rule promotes open communication and collaboration between parties. This can often lead to the resolution of disputes without the need for court intervention, thereby saving time and resources.
2. Efficient Case Management
Ensuring that parties engage in pre-motion conferences helps streamline the litigation process. By addressing potential issues early on, the court can better manage its docket and expedite proceedings.
3. Promoting Fairness
The requirement for good-faith conferencing underscores the principle of fairness in litigation. It encourages parties to engage in constructive dialogue and seek mutually acceptable solutions, ultimately promoting equitable outcomes.
4. Enhancing Accountability
The certification requirement adds an extra layer of accountability for counsel, reinforcing the importance of compliance with procedural rules. It acts as a safeguard against frivolous or improper motions, thereby promoting the integrity of the legal process.
Conclusion
In civil litigation in Washington State, adherence to procedural rules like CR 26(i) is indispensable. By mandating pre-motion conferences and ensuring good faith engagement among counsel, this rule serves to foster communication, streamline proceedings, and uphold the principles of fairness and accountability within the legal system. Attorneys practicing in Washington State must familiarize themselves with CR 26(i) and diligently adhere to its requirements to navigate civil litigation successfully. Failure to do so can not only result in sanctions but may also undermine the integrity of the litigation process itself.
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.
Under Washington State Court Rules, how may litigators utilize WA State Rule of Civil Procedure CR 16 (Pretrial Procedure and Formulating Issues)? 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
WA State Rule of Civil Procedure CR 16: A Guide for Litigators
In the legal arena, rules and procedures govern every aspect of a case, ensuring fairness and efficiency in the pursuit of justice. Washington State Rule of Civil Procedure CR 16* is one such crucial guideline that sets the stage for the orderly progression of civil litigation. Understanding CR 16 is essential for attorneys and litigants alike to navigate the complexities of the legal process in Washington State courts effectively.
What is CR 16?
CR 16, short for Washington State Rule of Civil Procedure 16, outlines the requirements and procedures for pretrial conferences and the development of a litigation plan. It serves as a roadmap for streamlining the litigation process, promoting early settlement, and ensuring that cases proceed expeditiously through the court system. The court rule states as follows:
CR 16
PRETRIAL PROCEDURE AND FORMULATING ISSUES
(a) Hearing Matters Considered. By order, or on the motion of any party, the court may in its discretion direct the attorneys for the parties to appear before it for a conference to consider:
(1) The simplification of the issues;
(2) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;
(3) The possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and of documents which will avoid unnecessary proof;
(4) The limitation of the number of expert witnesses;
(5) Such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the action.
(b) Pretrial Order. The court shall make an order which recites the action taken at the conference, the amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements made by the parties as to any of the matters considered, and which limits the issues for trial to those not disposed of by admissions or agreements of counsel; and such order when entered controls the subsequent course of the action, unless modified at the trial to prevent manifest injustice. The court in its discretion may establish by rule a pretrial calendar on which actions may be placed for consideration as above provided and may either confine the calendar to jury actions or to nonjury actions or extend it to all actions.
1. Pretrial Conferences: CR 16 allows–by order, or on the motion of any party–pretrial conferences to facilitate communication between parties and the court during the litigation process. These conferences aim to identify and narrow the issues in dispute, explore opportunities for settlement, and establish a framework for the efficient resolution of the case.
2. Litigation Plan: One of the central features of CR 16 is the formulation of a litigation plan. This plan outlines the parties’ proposed course of action, including simplifying the issues, amendments to the pleadings, the possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and of documents, limiting the number of expert witnesses, and any other pertinent matters essential for the progression of the case. The litigation plan helps parties and the court manage expectations and timelines effectively.
3. Pretrial Orders: The court must issue an order documenting the proceedings of the conference, including any amendments permitted to the pleadings and agreements reached by the parties on relevant matters. The order must delineate the issues remaining for trial, excluding those resolved through admissions or agreements of counsel. Once entered, this order governs the subsequent progression of the case unless modified during the trial to prevent clear injustice. Additionally, the court, at its discretion, may institute a pretrial calendar system for cases to undergo similar consideration. This calendar may be limited to either jury or nonjury cases, or expanded to encompass all types of actions.
Benefits of CR 16
1. Efficiency: By promoting early communication and establishing clear guidelines for case management, CR 16 helps expedite the litigation process, reducing delays and unnecessary expenses for all parties involved.
2. Clarity and Predictability: The requirement to develop a litigation plan provides clarity and predictability regarding the progression of the case, enabling parties to allocate resources more effectively and plan their litigation strategies accordingly.
3. Encouragement of Settlement: Through pretrial conferences and the exploration of settlement options, CR 16 encourages parties to resolve their disputes outside of court, potentially saving time, money, and emotional energy associated with protracted litigation.
4. Judicial Oversight: By empowering the court to actively manage the case through case management orders, CR 16 ensures that proceedings are conducted in a fair and orderly manner, with judicial oversight to address any procedural issues that may arise.
Conclusion
Washington State Rule of Civil Procedure CR 16 plays a vital role in promoting efficiency, fairness, and effective case management in civil litigation. By allowing pretrial conferences, formulating litigation plans, and providing for judicial oversight, CR 16 helps streamline the litigation process and facilitates the early resolution of disputes. Attorneys and litigants should familiarize themselves with CR 16’s requirements to navigate the complexities of civil litigation in Washington State courts successfully.
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
Is Washington State an at-will employment state?
answer:
Washington has been an “at-will” employment state since at least 1928. SeeFord v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 146 Wn.2d 146, 152, 43 P.3d 1223, (Wash. 2002) (referencing Davidson v. Mackall-Paine Veneer Co., 149 Wash. 685, 688, 271 P. 878 (1928); see also Prescott v. Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co., 40 Wash. 354, 357, 82 P. 606 (1905) (Mount, C.J., dissenting) (“where [an employment] contract is general and for an indefinite time, it is terminable at will.”)).
According to the at-will doctrine, “an employer can discharge an at-will employee for no cause, good cause or even cause morally wrong without fear of liability.” See id. (citing Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219, 226, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Conversely, in the absence of a contract stating otherwise, an employee has the absolute right to abandon … [their] employment at-will.” See id.
However, there are three recognized exceptions to the general at-will employment doctrine: (1) Statutory; (2) Judicial and; (3) Contractual.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
