Category: Miscellaneous

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Antiquitam (Appeal to Tradition)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Vercundiam (Appeal to Authority)

» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)

» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

» Law & Logic: Single Cause Fallacy (Complex Cause)

September 1, 2026September 3, 2026

LEARN MORE

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

–gw

The Perils of Plaintiff Dishonesty or Inaccuracy During Litigation

What are the perils of plaintiff dishonesty or inaccuracy during employment-discrimination litigation? Here’s my point of view.

IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.

Advertisement

Perils of Plaintiff Dishonesty or Inaccuracy During Employment-Discrimination Litigation

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

1. Credibility Drives Outcomes

Many employment disputes ultimately turn on whose version of events is believed. Judges and juries routinely weigh competing accounts from employees and employers. If a plaintiff is caught exaggerating or misstating even part of their story, it can taint their entire testimony. Once credibility is compromised, even strong evidence may carry less weight.

2. False Statements Can Trigger Legal Penalties

Providing inaccurate information in a legal proceeding is more than a tactical error—it can have serious consequences. Statements made under oath must be truthful, and knowingly false testimony can expose a plaintiff to perjury claims. Courts may also impose sanctions, dismiss claims, or require payment of the opposing party’s legal fees if misconduct is found.

3. Dishonesty Weakens the Broader System

When individuals misrepresent facts in discrimination cases, the damage extends beyond a single lawsuit. Such conduct can reinforce skepticism toward future claims and make it harder for others with legitimate grievances to be taken seriously. Maintaining honesty helps preserve the credibility of employment protections as a whole.

4. Attorney-Client Relationships Depend on Transparency

Lawyers are ethically prohibited from knowingly presenting false information. If a client withholds material facts or insists on advancing a false narrative, the attorney may have no choice but to withdraw. Open and truthful communication allows counsel to properly evaluate claims, anticipate defenses, and provide effective representation.

5. The Facts Alone Are Often Enough

There is a common but mistaken belief that embellishment strengthens a claim. In reality, consistent and accurate testimony is far more persuasive. Courts recognize that workplace disputes are complex, and plaintiffs are not expected to have perfect recollection. A candid account—supported by documents, communications, and witness testimony—can be highly compelling.

6. Discovery Will Expose Inconsistencies

Modern litigation involves detailed evidence gathering, including emails, personnel files, and sworn depositions. Inconsistencies between a plaintiff’s statements and the documentary record are often uncovered during this process. Once exposed, even small inaccuracies can become central issues that overshadow the underlying claim.

Conclusion

At its core, a successful employment discrimination claim depends on trust—trust in the facts presented and in the person presenting them. Being truthful does more than satisfy a legal obligation; it strengthens the overall case and preserves its legitimacy under scrutiny. When plaintiffs remain accurate and forthcoming, they give decision-makers a solid foundation on which to evaluate their claims. By contrast, any deviation from the truth can quickly shift attention away from the alleged wrongdoing and onto the plaintiff’s credibility, often with damaging results. For both clients and attorneys, a commitment to honesty is not optional—it is fundamental to achieving a fair and just outcome.

LEARN MORE

–gw

August 27, 2026September 3, 2026

Law & Logic: Single Cause Fallacy (Complex Cause)

In logic, what does the term Single Cause Fallacy (Complex Cause) mean, and how does it apply to employment-law trial lawyers handling workplace disputes? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

The Single Cause Fallacy in Washington Workplace Discrimination Cases

Workplace discrimination cases often seem to present a simple question: Why did the employer take the challenged action?

But workplace decisions rarely have just one cause. This is where the Single Cause Fallacy, sometimes called the Complex Cause Fallacy, can be a useful way to think about employment discrimination claims.

What Is the Single Cause Fallacy?

The Single Cause Fallacy occurs when we assume that an event must have one exclusive cause when, in reality, several factors may have contributed to the outcome.

For example, an employer may say an employee was terminated because of poor performance. The employee, however, may have evidence of discriminatory comments, different treatment of comparable employees, or unusual scrutiny based on a protected characteristic.

The existence of performance problems does not necessarily mean discrimination played no role.

video Example: Single Cause Fallacy (Complex Cause)

How Does This Apply in Washington?

Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics. In employment discrimination cases involving an adverse action, Washington law asks whether the protected characteristic was a substantial factor in the employer’s decision.

That standard is important because a substantial factor does not necessarily have to be the only factor.

Thus, the question is not always whether the employer had a legitimate reason for its decision or whether discrimination was involved. Both can potentially be true. The question is whether discrimination was a substantial factor in bringing about the challenged action.

Looking Beyond an “Either-Or” Explanation

Consider an employee who genuinely has performance problems but is also subjected to discriminatory comments and held to standards that are not applied to comparable employees.

It may be overly simplistic to say, “The employee had performance problems, so discrimination could not have been a factor.”

Trial lawyers should instead examine the entire decision-making process:

• What did the decision-maker know, and when?

• Were workplace rules applied consistently?

• Were similarly situated employees treated differently?

• Did the employer’s explanation change?

• Is there evidence of discriminatory attitudes or remarks?

The answers may help show how multiple factors came together to produce the employment decision.

What This Means for Employment Lawyers

For plaintiff‘s counsel, recognizing the Single Cause Fallacy can help address an employer’s argument that a legitimate reason automatically defeats a discrimination claim.

For defense counsel, the same principle is useful in the other direction. Evidence that an employee has a protected characteristic—or that a decision-maker made an inappropriate remark—does not automatically establish that discrimination caused the adverse action.

In either case, the focus should be on causation and the evidence surrounding the actual decision.

Conclusion

The Single Cause Fallacy is ultimately a warning against oversimplifying complicated decisions.

In a Washington workplace discrimination case, an employee’s protected characteristic does not necessarily have to be the only reason for an adverse employment action. The important question is whether discrimination was a substantial factor in the decision.

Recognizing that possibility of multiple causes can help both lawyers and jurors evaluate the evidence more accurately—and avoid reducing a complicated employment decision to a misleading “either-or” choice.

Read Our Related Articles

» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Antiquitam (Appeal to Tradition)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Vercundiam (Appeal to Authority)

» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)

» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

August 25, 2026August 27, 2026

LEARN MORE

–gw

Lie-Detector Tests and Employment

Lie-Detector Tests and Employment (WA State)

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.

RCW 49.44.135.

CRIMINAL CULPABILITY

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.

August 20, 2026September 3, 2026

Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

In logic, what does the term Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance) mean, and how does it apply to employment-law trial lawyers handling workplace disputes? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam in Employment-Discrimination Litigation

Employment-discrimination cases often involve a difficult evidentiary problem: discriminatory intent is rarely stated openly. Instead, attorneys frequently must ask judges and juries to draw reasonable conclusions from circumstantial evidence.

One logical fallacy that can arise in this setting is argumentum ad ignorantiam, commonly called an “appeal to ignorance.” Understanding it can help employment attorneys identify flawed arguments and present evidence more effectively.

What Is Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam occurs when someone argues that a proposition must be true because it has not been proven false—or false because it has not been proven true.

For example:

“There is no evidence that the manager discriminated against the employee; therefore, the manager did not discriminate.”

The conclusion does not necessarily follow. The absence of evidence may reflect many things: the conduct was undocumented, witnesses were unavailable, relevant communications were not preserved, or the evidence simply has not been discovered.

The reverse can also be problematic:

“The employer cannot prove that discrimination did not occur; therefore, discrimination occurred.”

That conclusion is equally unwarranted.

video Example: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

Why It Matters in Employment Cases

Discriminatory motive is often established through circumstantial evidence rather than a direct admission. A plaintiff may rely on inconsistent explanations, unusual departures from company procedures, disparate treatment, suspicious timing, remarks by decision-makers, or other facts from which discriminatory intent may reasonably be inferred.

An employer might respond, for example, that there is no email or document stating that a decision was motivated by race, sex, age, disability, or another protected characteristic.

That may be relevant evidence—but it does not automatically establish the absence of discriminatory intent. The important question is what reasonable inference can be drawn from the entire evidentiary record.

“No Evidence” Is Not Always the Same as “Evidence of No”

Trial lawyers should carefully distinguish between these propositions:

• “No witness testified that discrimination occurred.”

• “The evidence establishes that discrimination did not occur.”

The first describes a deficiency or absence in the evidentiary record. The second makes a substantive factual claim. Moving from the first to the second without additional reasoning can constitute an appeal to ignorance.

This distinction can be particularly useful during cross-examination. If a witness says, “I never saw evidence of discrimination,” counsel can explore what the witness actually reviewed, what the witness knew about the decision-making process, and whether the witness is saying discrimination did not occur—or merely that the witness personally encountered no evidence of it.

The Fallacy Has Limits

Not every argument based on a lack of evidence is fallacious.

If a plaintiff bears the burden of proving an element of a discrimination claim and presents insufficient evidence, the defendant may properly argue that the plaintiff failed to meet the applicable burden of proof. That is different from claiming that the absence of proof affirmatively establishes the opposite proposition.

Consequently, attorneys should not invoke argumentum ad ignorantiam simply because opposing counsel discusses missing evidence. The critical question is whether the opposing party is making an inference that logically and legally follows from that absence.

A Practical Lesson for Trial Attorneys

When confronted with an absence-of-evidence argument, counsel can ask three questions:

1. What exactly is the other side claiming the missing evidence proves?

2. Does its absence actually establish that proposition?

3. What affirmative or circumstantial evidence should the factfinder consider instead?

The ultimate issue is not whether every fact has been conclusively established. In many employment cases, the factfinder must evaluate competing inferences from incomplete evidence.

Conclusion

Argumentum ad ignorantiam provides employment-discrimination attorneys with a useful analytical tool. The absence of a “smoking gun” does not necessarily prove that discrimination did not occur, just as the absence of proof that discrimination did not occur does not establish that it did.

The stronger trial argument focuses on the evidence that actually exists, the reasonable inferences it supports, and the governing burden of proof. Logic cannot replace employment law—but it can help lawyers recognize when an opponent’s conclusion goes beyond what the evidence can legitimately establish.

Read Our Related Articles

» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Antiquitam (Appeal to Tradition)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Vercundiam (Appeal to Authority)

» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)

» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

» Law & Logic: Single Cause Fallacy (Complex Cause)

August 6, 2026September 3, 2026

LEARN MORE

–gw

Law & Logic: Halo Effect and Gambler’s Fallacy

In logic, what do the terms Halo Effect and Gambler’s Fallacy mean, and how do they apply to employment-law trial lawyers handling workplace disputes? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Thinking About Thinking: Why Employment Trial Lawyers Should Recognize the Halo Effect and the Gambler’s Fallacy

Every employment trial asks jurors to answer difficult questions. Why was an employee terminated? Was a workplace decision lawful or motivated by discrimination or retaliation? Which witnesses deserve to be believed?

Although those questions are answered under the law, they are first considered by people. Like all people, jurors—and even attorneys—can be influenced by unconscious thinking patterns that simplify complicated decisions. Two of the most common are the Halo Effect and the Gambler’s Fallacy.

Understanding these mental tendencies does not replace careful legal analysis; it helps attorneys keep their focus where it belongs—on the evidence and the law.

video Example: Halo Effect & Gambler’s Fallacy

The Halo Effect: The Power of a First Impression

The Halo Effect is a cognitive bias in which one favorable characteristic of a person influences how we perceive their other qualities.

A favorable first impression can quietly influence how everything that follows is interpreted. Someone who appears polished, confident, or accomplished may be given the benefit of the doubt without anyone consciously intending to do so. The opposite is equally true: an awkward presentation or an unfavorable first impression can unfairly color later judgments.

Employment cases frequently place credibility at the center of the dispute. A manager’s confident testimony may seem persuasive before the supporting evidence is even discussed. Likewise, an employee who appears nervous on the witness stand may face an uphill battle despite having truthful testimony.

Good trial lawyers recognize that credibility should be earned through evidence, not appearances. Part of effective advocacy is helping jurors separate impressions from proof.

The Gambler’s Fallacy: When Experience Becomes Expectation

The Gambler’s Fallacy is a different type of cognitive error. It occurs when people mistakenly believe that past independent events affect future independent outcomes.

The legal profession is built on experience, but experience can sometimes encourage faulty assumptions. Consider an attorney who has won several employment trials in succession. It may become tempting to believe the next case is likely to end the same way. Another lawyer who recently suffered multiple losses may assume the next favorable verdict is somehow overdue.

Neither conclusion reflects how trials actually work.

Each employment case arrives with a unique combination of facts, witnesses, documents, legal issues, and decision-makers. Yesterday’s verdict does not influence tomorrow’s jury.

This same thinking can affect settlement discussions. A lawyer focused on recent courtroom success may overestimate the value of a case, while one influenced by recent disappointments may become unnecessarily cautious. Sound judgment requires evaluating the case that is actually before the court—not the last one.

Practical Takeaways for Employment Litigators

Awareness of cognitive bias offers practical advantages throughout litigation.

First, continually test whether your assessment of a witness is based on evidence or merely on presentation.

Second, devote meaningful time to witness preparation. Jurors inevitably form impressions, and thoughtful preparation helps ensure those impressions are supported by substance.

Third, approach every new matter with fresh eyes. Prior victories and defeats may teach valuable lessons, but they should never substitute for an independent evaluation of the current record.

Finally, encourage clients to appreciate that litigation outcomes are driven by evidence, applicable law, and credibility—not perceived momentum.

Why These Concepts Matter

Employment litigation often involves competing narratives rather than undisputed facts. That reality makes it especially important to understand how people evaluate information.

Recognizing cognitive bias does not eliminate it. Instead, it encourages lawyers to ask better questions, challenge assumptions, and keep attention where it belongs: on the evidence presented in court.

Closing Argument

Successful employment trial lawyers do more than master statutes, procedural rules, and jury instructions. They also recognize that every courtroom is filled with human beings whose decisions are shaped by both reason and perception. By remaining alert to the Halo Effect and the Gambler’s Fallacy, attorneys can avoid allowing unconscious assumptions to influence their own strategic decisions while presenting cases that invite jurors to decide disputes on facts rather than impressions. In the end, the strongest verdicts are those grounded not in cognitive shortcuts, but in careful analysis, credible evidence, and the faithful application of the law.

Read Our Related Articles

» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Antiquitam (Appeal to Tradition)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Vercundiam (Appeal to Authority)

» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)

» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

» Law & Logic: Single Cause Fallacy (Complex Cause)

July 30, 2026September 3, 2026

LEARN MORE

–gw

Law & Logic: The False Compromise

In logic, what does the term False Compromise mean, and how does it apply to employment-law trial lawyers handling workplace disputes? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

False Compromise: A Logical Fallacy Every Employment Trial Lawyer Should Recognize

Employment lawsuits often present two competing versions of the same events. An employee may allege discrimination or retaliation, while an employer insists every decision was lawful. Because both sides tell different stories, there is a natural temptation to assume the truth must lie somewhere in the middle.

That assumption is known as the false compromise fallacy, and it has no place in the courtroom.

What Is THE False Compromise?

False compromise—also called the middle-ground fallacy—is the mistaken belief that when two people disagree, the correct answer must be a compromise between their positions.

But truth is not determined by averaging competing claims. It is determined by evidence.

Sometimes both sides are partly correct. Sometimes neither is. And sometimes one side is simply right.

video Example: False Compromise

How It Appears in Employment Cases

Employment cases frequently involve conflicting testimony.

An employee may testify that she complained about discrimination before being fired. The employer may deny that any complaint was ever made. A jury’s job is not to assume both witnesses are exaggerating and split the difference. Its job is to decide which version is supported by the evidence.

The existence of a dispute does not mean each side deserves equal credibility.

Why It Matters to Trial Lawyers

Experienced employment trial attorneys know that credibility is earned through consistency, corroborating documents, and reliable testimony—not through mathematical fairness.

Emails, text messages, personnel records, performance reviews, witness testimony, and company policies often provide objective evidence that supports one version of events over another.

A persuasive trial lawyer helps the jury focus on those facts rather than the instinctive—but flawed—belief that “the truth must be somewhere in the middle.”

Fairness Is Not the Same as Compromise

People often associate fairness with compromise because compromise is valuable in negotiations and everyday life.

Trials are different.

Jurors are not asked to negotiate a resolution between the parties. They are asked to determine what actually happened based on the evidence presented in court.

Those are two very different tasks.

Closing Argument

The false compromise fallacy reminds us that disagreement alone does not justify a middle-ground conclusion. In employment litigation, the goal is not to find a convenient compromise between competing stories. The goal is to discover which story the evidence proves.

For employees, employers, and trial lawyers alike, the strongest case is built not on assumptions or appearances, but on credible evidence. In the courtroom, justice depends on following the facts—not simply meeting in the middle.

Read Our Related Articles

» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Antiquitam (Appeal to Tradition)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Vercundiam (Appeal to Authority)

» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)

» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

» Law & Logic: Single Cause Fallacy (Complex Cause)

July 23, 2026September 3, 2026

LEARN MORE

–gw

Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Vercundiam (Appeal to Authority)

In logic, what does the term Argumentum Ad Vercundiam (Appeal to Authority) mean, and how does it apply to employment-law trial lawyers handling workplace disputes? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Beyond Credentials: Understanding Argumentum Ad Verecundiam in Employment Law

In nearly every employment lawsuit, someone eventually points to an expert. A physician explains an injury, an economist calculates lost wages, or a human resources consultant offers an opinion about workplace practices. Expertise certainly has value—but expertise alone does not settle a legal dispute.

This is where the concept of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, commonly called the Appeal to Authority, becomes relevant.

Simply put, a person’s credentials do not make every opinion indisputably correct.

What Does the Term Mean?

The Appeal to Authority is a reasoning error that occurs when a conclusion is accepted primarily because it comes from someone with perceived expertise or status, rather than because the conclusion is supported by convincing evidence.

Experts deserve careful consideration. They do not receive automatic acceptance.

Whether the authority is a professor, physician, consultant, or industry leader, the real question remains the same: What facts support the opinion?

video Example: Argumentum Ad Vercundiam (Appeal to Authority)

Why Employment Lawyers Should Care

Employment litigation often turns on complicated issues that require specialized knowledge. Medical professionals may discuss physical or emotional injuries, vocational experts may evaluate employability, and economists may estimate future financial losses.

These opinions can help explain technical subjects to a judge or jury, but they are only one part of the overall evidentiary picture. Documents, witness testimony, company records, and the surrounding facts remain equally important.

An impressive resume cannot fill gaps in the evidence.

The Attorney’s Job

Experienced trial attorneys understand that the most persuasive arguments are built on proof, not prestige.

When presenting expert testimony, effective advocates explain how the expert reached a conclusion, what information was reviewed, and why the opinion is reliable. Just as importantly, opposing counsel examines whether the analysis rests on sound methodology or questionable assumptions.

The courtroom is designed to test opinions—not simply admire credentials.

Looking Beyond Titles

Appeals to authority can arise long before a case reaches trial. An employer may rely on an outside investigator’s report, while an employee may point to a treating physician’s conclusions. Both opinions may be relevant, but neither is the final word.

Courts do not decide cases by asking, “Who has the most impressive title?” They ask whether the evidence, viewed as a whole, satisfies the applicable legal standard.

That distinction is fundamental to a fair judicial process.

conclusion

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam serves as a useful reminder that authority should inform legal decision-making, not replace it. In employment law, expert testimony can strengthen a case, but only when it is supported by reliable facts, sound reasoning, and persuasive evidence.

The most effective employment-law trial attorneys recognize this principle. Rather than asking a jury to trust an expert because of a distinguished background, they demonstrate why the expert’s conclusions deserve confidence. In the end, successful advocacy rests not on reputation alone, but on the strength of the evidence presented.

Read Our Related Articles

» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Antiquitam (Appeal to Tradition)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)

» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

» Law & Logic: Single Cause Fallacy (Complex Cause)

July 22, 2026July 23, 2026

LEARN MORE

–gw

The Offer of Judgment (WA State)

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.

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.

CR 68*.

What Is an Offer of Judgment?

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.

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

» Rendering a Verdict: WA State vs. Federal Court

» Trials by Remote Means (WA State)

LEARN MORE

–gw

July 16, 2026September 3, 2026

Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy

In logic, what do the terms Confirmation Bias and Sunk Cost Fallacy mean, and how do they apply to employment-law trial lawyers handling workplace disputes? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Thinking Clearly in Employment Litigation: Confirmation Bias and the Sunk Cost Fallacy

Successful employment litigation requires more than a thorough understanding of the law. It also requires sound judgment. Two common cognitive biases—confirmation bias and the sunk cost fallacy—can influence litigation strategy in ways that are easy to overlook.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that supports our existing beliefs while discounting evidence that points in the opposite direction. In employment cases, this can occur when an attorney becomes convinced early that a termination was either lawful or discriminatory and then unconsciously interprets new evidence through that lens.

For example, a lawyer may focus on documents and witness testimony that reinforce the client’s position while minimizing evidence that creates risk. Effective advocacy requires not only building a persuasive case but also honestly evaluating unfavorable facts. Lawyers who actively test their own assumptions are often better equipped to advise clients and anticipate opposing arguments.

The sunk cost fallacy involves continuing a course of action simply because substantial time, money, or effort has already been invested. In litigation, this can happen when the parties have spent months conducting discovery, taking depositions, and preparing for trial. Rather than evaluating whether settlement or continued litigation is the best decision today, lawyers and clients may feel compelled to “see it through” because of the resources already expended.

The better approach is to evaluate each stage of a case based on current facts, legal developments, litigation costs, and the client’s objectives—not on investments that cannot be recovered.

video Example: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy

IMPLICATIONS

Recognizing these cognitive biases can improve decision-making throughout an employment case. Periodically reassessing the strengths and weaknesses of a claim, seeking objective feedback from colleagues, and remaining open to changing strategies as new evidence emerges can help attorneys provide more effective representation.

Employment litigation is inherently uncertain, and no attorney is immune from the way the human mind processes information. The most effective trial lawyers are those who remain willing to challenge their own assumptions and make strategic decisions based on the evidence as it exists today—not as they expected it to be when the case began.

Read Our Related Articles

» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Antiquitam (Appeal to Tradition)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Vercundiam (Appeal to Authority)

» Law & Logic: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)

» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

» Law & Logic: Single Cause Fallacy (Complex Cause)