Miscellaneous Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

May 14, 2026September 17, 2026

Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

Under the rules of logic, what does the term Petitio Principii 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*, an official governmental website, or a well-recognized organization. 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

Law and Logic: Petitio Principii in Employment Discrimination Litigation

The legal profession depends upon persuasive reasoning, but persuasion becomes problematic when an argument assumes its own conclusion. One of the oldest logical fallacies—petitio principii, or circular reasoning—appears more often in litigation than many attorneys realize, particularly in employment discrimination cases.

Although the phrase is commonly misused in casual conversation, its true meaning has significant implications for lawyers, judges, and juries alike.

What Is Petitio Principii?

Petitio principii occurs when an argument assumes the very fact it is attempting to prove. A simple example is:

“The witness is truthful because she is credible, and she is credible because she is truthful.”

The conclusion merely repeats itself in different language. No independent evidence supports the claim. In legal disputes, circular reasoning often hides beneath persuasive narratives or conclusory statements that sound evidentiary but are actually assumptions.

An Example: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

Why It Matters in Employment Law

Employment discrimination cases frequently depend upon circumstantial evidence because direct proof of discriminatory intent is rare. That reality creates a greater risk of circular reasoning. For example:

“The employee was terminated because of discrimination because the termination itself was discriminatory.”

That statement sounds persuasive, but it provides no independent proof of discriminatory motive. The legal issue is not whether an adverse action occurred. The issue is why it occurred.

Circular Reasoning and the Burden-Shifting Framework

Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework*, courts evaluate circumstantial discrimination claims through a multi-step process involving prima facie* evidence, employer explanations*, and potential pretext*.

Problems arise when attorneys argue:

“The employer’s explanation is false because discrimination occurred, and discrimination occurred because the explanation is false.”

Without independent evidence, the reasoning becomes circular rather than analytical.

The same problem appears when litigants assume that procedural unfairness automatically proves unlawful bias, or when every workplace disagreement is retroactively characterized as discriminatory simply because litigation followed.

The Danger of “Inference Stacking”

Employment cases often rely on inference, which is entirely proper when grounded in evidence. But attorneys sometimes build one unsupported inference upon another.

For example:

• The employee received criticism;
• Therefore management disliked the employee;
• Therefore management was biased;
• Therefore the termination was discriminatory.

Each conclusion depends upon the prior assumption rather than independent proof. That is not careful reasoning. It is speculation layered into narrative form.

Defense Counsel Can Commit the Same Error

Circular reasoning is not limited to plaintiffs. Employers sometimes argue:

“The company could not have discriminated because it maintains anti-discrimination policies.”

But a policy is not proof of compliance. Assuming lawful intent merely because policies exist can become circular as well. Likewise, arguing that a supervisor cannot be biased because the supervisor previously hired or promoted protected employees may oversimplify a far more fact-specific inquiry. Cf., Same Actor Inference Doctrine (my article supporting how this argument might be viable in some employment discrimination cases).

Distinguishing Inference from Circularity

Not every inference is improper. Legitimate discrimination claims often rely on:

• Comparator evidence;
• Discriminatory remarks;
• Statistical disparities;
• Suspicious timing; or
• Inconsistent explanations supported by other facts.

The distinction is simple:

• A valid inference moves from evidence to conclusion.
• Circular reasoning treats the conclusion itself as evidence.

Why Logical Discipline Matters

Employment discrimination law occupies an important place in the justice system because it balances workplace accountability with fairness to both employees and employers.

When courts or attorneys rely on circular reasoning, weak claims may appear stronger than they are, while legitimate defenses—or legitimate claims—may receive inadequate analysis. For trial attorneys, recognizing petitio principii is therefore more than an academic exercise. It is part of effective advocacy and ethical legal reasoning.

The strongest employment cases are not built upon assumptions repeated persuasively. They are built upon evidence that independently supports the conclusion the advocate seeks to prove.

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: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Populum

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

» Law & Logic: Complex Question (False Dilemma)

» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Conjunction Fallacy

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

» Law & Logic: Fallacy of the Inverse (Denying the Antecedent)

» Law & Logic: Halo Effect and Gambler’s Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

» Law & Logic: Proper Reasoning (Valid Logic)

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

» Law & Logic: The False Compromise

» 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 30, 2026September 17, 2026

Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

Under the rules of logic, what does the term Ignoratio Elenchi mean as applied in the legal profession? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Law and Logic: Understanding Ignoratio Elenchi in the Courtroom

In both law and logic, precision matters. Arguments are not merely about persuasion—they are about relevance, structure, and ultimately, truth. One of the most persistent logical missteps encountered in legal advocacy is ignoratio elenchi, often translated as “irrelevant conclusion.” While the term may sound esoteric, the underlying concept is both common and consequential in trial practice.

What Is Ignoratio Elenchi?

At its core, ignoratio elenchi occurs when an argument purports to prove one thing but actually proves something else. The conclusion may be valid in isolation, even compelling, but it fails to address the issue that is actually in dispute. In other words, the argument “misses the point.”

For example, imagine a defendant on trial for breach of contract. In response, their counsel spends considerable time demonstrating that the defendant is a generous community member who donates to charity. While this may be true—and even admirable—it does nothing to resolve whether a contract was breached. The conclusion (the defendant is a good person) is irrelevant to the legal question at hand.

An Example: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

Why It Matters in Trial Advocacy

Trial lawyers operate within a structured framework defined by pleadings, elements of claims, burdens of proof, and rules of evidence. Every argument must connect directly to a material issue in the case. When an attorney commits ignoratio elenchi, they risk undermining their own credibility and distracting the judge or jury.

This misstep can appear in several ways

In the legal profession, ignoratio elenchi can appear in several ways, including the following:

• Misaligned Evidence: Presenting evidence that does not relate to any element of the claim or defense.

• Emotional Diversions: appealing to sympathy or prejudice without tying those appeals to legally relevant facts.

• Shifting the Issue: subtly reframing the dispute into a more favorable—but legally irrelevant—question.

While such tactics may occasionally have rhetorical force, they are logically unsound and often vulnerable to objection.

Judicial and Jury Implications

Judges are trained to identify irrelevance and may exclude such arguments under evidentiary rules*. For instance, under Rule 401* of the Federal Rules of Evidence*, evidence must have a tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable. Arguments rooted in ignoratio elenchi frequently fail this test.

Jurors, however, are not always as equipped to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant conclusions. This creates a tension: an argument may be logically flawed yet psychologically persuasive. Skilled trial lawyers must navigate this carefully—advocating persuasively without straying into irrelevance that could draw objections or appellate scrutiny.

Avoiding the Fallacy

To guard against ignoratio elenchi, attorneys should continually ask:

• What is the precise issue the court must decide?

• What elements must be proven?

• Does this argument directly support or refute one of those elements?

This discipline ensures that advocacy remains anchored to the legal questions that matter.

Strategic Use—and Ethical Boundaries

It would be naïve to suggest that irrelevant arguments never influence outcomes. In practice, some attorneys may intentionally introduce peripheral themes to shape narratives or juror perceptions. However, there is a fine line between persuasive storytelling and logical misdirection.

Ethically, lawyers are bound to present arguments grounded in law and fact. See WA State Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 3.1*. Overreliance on irrelevant conclusions risks not only objections and judicial reprimand but also damage to professional reputation.

CLOSING ARGUMENT

Ignoratio elenchi is more than an abstract logical fallacy—it is a practical hazard in legal argumentation. For trial lawyers, mastering the distinction between relevant and irrelevant conclusions is essential to effective advocacy. For the public, understanding this concept offers insight into how legal arguments can sometimes persuade without truly proving their point.
In the courtroom, as in logic, the question is not just whether an argument is convincing—but whether it actually answers the question being asked.

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: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Populum

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

» Law & Logic: Complex Question (False Dilemma)

» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Conjunction Fallacy

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

» Law & Logic: Fallacy of the Inverse (Denying the Antecedent)

» Law & Logic: Halo Effect and Gambler’s Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

» Law & Logic: Proper Reasoning (Valid Logic)

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

» Law & Logic: The False Compromise

» Law & Logic: The Straw Man Fallacy

LEARN MORE

–gw

April 16, 2026September 17, 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.

Closing Argument

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: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

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

» Law & Logic: Complex Question (False Dilemma)

» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Conjunction Fallacy

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

» Law & Logic: Fallacy of the Inverse (Denying the Antecedent)

» Law & Logic: Halo Effect and Gambler’s Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

» Law & Logic: Proper Reasoning (Valid Logic)

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

» Law & Logic: The False Compromise

» Law & Logic: The Straw Man Fallacy

LEARN MORE

–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

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

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