Miscellaneous Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

April 16, 2026July 16, 2026

Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Populum

Under the rules of logic, what does the term Argumentum Ad Populum mean as applied in the legal profession? 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

Argumentum Ad Populum: When Popularity Isn’t Proof

In both everyday conversations and legal arguments, it’s common to hear claims supported by phrases like “everyone knows” or “most people agree.” This line of reasoning is known as argumentum ad populum, or the “appeal to the majority.” While it can be persuasive, it is not logically sound.

At its core, argumentum ad populum assumes that a claim must be true simply because many people believe it. But widespread belief does not equal factual accuracy. History offers plenty of examples where majority opinion was later proven wrong. In legal contexts, relying on popularity instead of evidence can weaken an argument and obscure the truth.

An Example: Argumentum Ad Populum (Appeal to the Majority)

Implications

general public

For the general public, this fallacy often appears in discussions about social norms, consumer choices, or public opinion. For example, saying a product is “the best” because it’s widely used does not necessarily mean it is objectively superior.

legal professionals

In the legal field, the stakes are higher. Attorneys must base arguments on statutes, case law, and evidence—not on what the majority thinks. While public opinion can influence areas like jury perception or legislative change, it is not, by itself, proof of a legal claim. Courts are tasked with applying the law, not measuring popularity.

Conclusion

That said, understanding argumentum ad populum is still valuable for legal professionals. Recognizing when opposing counsel subtly relies on popular sentiment rather than legal authority can help sharpen responses and clarify the issues at hand.

In short, popularity may explain why people believe something, but it does not establish whether it is true. Distinguishing between the two is essential for clear thinking—both inside and outside the courtroom.

Read Our Related Articles

» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

» Law & Logic: Ad Hominem

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

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

» 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: Proper Reasoning (Valid Logic)

» Law & Logic: The Straw Man Fallacy

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

April 9, 2026April 25, 2026

Personality Tests and Employment Discrimination

To what extent do personality tests used in job screenings create a risk of employment discrimination under Washington State law? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

When Personality Tests Become Discrimination: A Growing Risk in Washington Hiring

Washington employers increasingly rely on personality tests, behavioral assessments, and algorithm‑driven screening tools to sort job applicants. These tools promise efficiency and objectivity — but they also create real risks under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), especially in Pierce and King Counties where tech‑driven hiring is common.

Why These Tests Raise Red Flags

Many personality assessments measure traits that correlate with protected conditions. For example:

• “Stress tolerance” scores may penalize applicants with anxiety disorders.

• “Adaptability” metrics can disadvantage neurodivergent candidates.

• “Energy level” ratings may screen out individuals with chronic health conditions.

Under WLAD, discrimination doesn’t require intent. If a hiring tool disproportionately excludes people with disabilities—or any protected class—the employer may be liable even if the tool was purchased from a third‑party vendor.

Washington’s Broader Legal Standard

Unlike federal law, WLAD is interpreted liberally* in favor of employees. Employers should be wary of outsourcing discrimination to software, consultants, or automated systems. If the tool creates a disparate impact, the employer should own the consequences.

This means a well‑meaning HR department in Tacoma or Seattle might inadvertently violate WLAD simply by relying on a vendor’s “validated” assessment that screens out protected groups.

What Employers Should Be Doing (opinion)

To stay compliant, I believe Washington employers should:

• Audit any personality or behavioral test for disparate impact.

• Request validation studies specific to the job and region — not generic national data.

• Offer accommodations or alternative assessments when disability may affect results.

• Avoid blanket reliance on automated scoring or algorithmic rankings.

These steps are beyond best practices and are increasingly necessary as regulators and courts scrutinize algorithmic hiring.

What Employees Should Know

If you were rejected after taking a personality test or online assessment, and you believe the results were influenced by a disability or other protected characteristic, you may have rights under WLAD. Washington law allows applicants to challenge discriminatory screening tools even before they are hired.

Conclusion

As hiring becomes more automated, Washington’s anti‑discrimination laws remain firmly human‑centered. Employers in WA State should treat personality tests and algorithmic tools with caution — and applicants should know that a computer‑generated rejection isn’t always the final word.

Read Our Related Articles

» Employment Discrimination Based Upon Cannabis Use (WA State)

» Job Applicants and Criminal Records

» Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

LEARN MORE

–gw

March 19, 2026April 25, 2026

The Perils of Plaintiff Dishonesty or Inaccuracy During Litigation

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

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

January 8, 2026January 8, 2026

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

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

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

Advertisement

Why “Playing the Race Card” Is a Harmful Idiom—and Shouldn’t Deter Employees in Washington State from Seeking Justice

In today’s workplaces, discussions about race and discrimination remain highly sensitive—and sometimes even controversial. Unfortunately, one phrase often used to undermine these conversations is the idiom “playing the race card.” Though it may seem like a casual expression, this phrase carries derogatory connotations and can have a chilling effect on individuals experiencing racial discrimination.

For employees in Washington State facing unfair treatment based on race, it’s essential to understand that seeking legal help is not only your right—it can be a necessary step in protecting yourself and improving workplace equity for everyone.

The Problem with “Playing the Race Card”

At its core, the idiom “playing the race card” implies that someone is opportunistically or manipulatively invoking their race to gain an advantage or excuse poor behavior. This notion casts doubt on the legitimacy of racial discrimination claims and frames the accuser as disingenuous.

This phrase is problematic for several reasons:

1. It Delegitimizes Genuine Concerns: Using this idiom suggests that raising concerns about racism is inherently suspect or dishonest. This mindset undermines the very real, and often well-documented, existence of racial bias in employment decisions such as hiring, promotions, compensation, and termination.

2. It Discourages Reporting: When people fear being accused of “playing the race card,” they may hesitate to come forward with valid claims. This reluctance allows discriminatory practices to persist unchecked.

3. It Perpetuates Systemic Inequality: Framing race-based complaints as exaggerated or attention-seeking minimizes the systemic nature of racism and prevents meaningful dialogue or change.

Know Your Rights in Washington State

Washington State has some of the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the country. Under both state and federal law, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee or job applicant based on certain protected classes including, but not limited to, race.

If you believe that your employer has treated you unfairly because of your race, you have the right to file a complaint and pursue legal recourse. This may include:

» Unequal pay or benefits

» Disparate impact

» Disparate treatment

» Harassment or hostile work environment

» Wrongful termination or demotion

» Retaliation for reporting discrimination

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) provides legal protection for workers and allows victims to seek remedies such as reinstatement, back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, and attorney’s fees.

Why Speaking to an Employment Attorney Matters

Racial discrimination in the workplace is not always blatant. It can take subtle forms—like being passed over for promotions, consistently receiving worse assignments, or enduring offhand remarks that create a hostile environment. An experienced employment attorney can help assess your situation, gather evidence, and advise you on the best path forward.

Crucially, consulting a lawyer sends a clear message: you are not “playing” at anything—you are asserting your legal rights under the law.

Moving Beyond the Stigma

Challenging racial bias isn’t easy, and it often comes with emotional and professional risks. But phrases like “playing the race card” should not be allowed to shame or silence those who have the courage to speak out.

If you’re experiencing discrimination in your workplace, know that your concerns are valid. You don’t have to tolerate unfair treatment, and you’re not alone. Protect your rights. Seek legal guidance. And remember: justice begins with the decision to stand up and be heard.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

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

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

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

LEARN MORE

–gw

October 9, 2025October 9, 2025

Summary Judgment: Mere Allegations vs. Specific Facts

Under Washington State law, may an employment-discrimination plaintiff rely on mere allegations to overcome a motion for summary judgment? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement

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.

-gw

August 28, 2025August 28, 2025

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 31, 2025July 31, 2025

Trials by Remote Means (WA State)

Under Washington State Superior Court Civil Rules (hereinafter, “Civil Rule” or “CR”), what are trials by remote means? Here’s my point of view.

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

–gw

July 14, 2025July 16, 2026

Cat’s Paw Theory of Liability (WA State)

Cat's Paw Theory of Liability (WA State)

In Washington State, what is the cat’s paw theory of liability? Here’s my point of view.

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. See Boyd 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).

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress & Supervisors*

» Suing Co-Workers for Hostile Work Environment (Harassment)*

» Suing Supervisors for Discrimination in Washington*

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.

June 26, 2025June 26, 2025

Pre-Litigation Settlement Caps: EEOC vs. WSHRC

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.

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

In Washington State, the WSHRC handles, inter alia, claims of employment discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) — it is responsible for enforcing the WLAD. The WSHRC works similarly to the EEOC* but addresses claims under state law.

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:

» EEOC: The Notice of Right to Sue

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

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

» WSHRC: Organization and Operations

LEARN MORE

–gw

June 12, 2025

Why Do Some Employers Unlawfully Discriminate?

Why do some employers unlawfully discriminate against their employees? Here’s my point of view.

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.

This kind of reasoning may violate laws like the WLAD, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), Equal Pay Act*, or ADEA*. Cost alone is not a defense to discriminatory practices.

4. Discriminatory Customer or Client Preferences

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:

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

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

LEARN MORE

–gw