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.
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
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.
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.
• 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.
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
(IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our 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.
Under Washington State Superior Court Civil Rules (hereinafter, “Civil Rule” or “CR”), what are trials by remote means? Here’s my point of view.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
Understanding Trials by Remote Means in Washington State Superior Court: CR 39(d)
Washington State courts continue to adapt to modern technology and the evolving needs of litigants. One example is Civil Rule 39(d)* of the Superior Court Civil Rules*, which addresses how civil trials can proceed remotely—either in part or entirely.
What Is CR 39(d)?
CR 39(d)* allows civil trials to be conducted by remote means, such as videoconferencing, if certain conditions are met. This rule gives parties more flexibility, especially when travel or logistics might otherwise be barriers to participating in court.
Two Paths to a Remote Trial
There are two main ways a trial may proceed remotely under CR 39(d)*:
1. By Agreement (Stipulation):
If all parties agree and the court approves, the trial can take place remotely in whole or in part. In such cases, the technology used must allow all participants—including the judge, attorneys, and witnesses—to see, hear, and speak to each other clearly. Importantly, the court must also ensure that the trial remains open to the public, with full access to video and audio feeds.
2. By Proposal Without Agreement:
If one party requests a remote trial, the court must schedule a hearing at least 30 days before trial (or sooner by mutual agreement) to consider the proposal. If the parties can’t agree, the trial will default to being held in person, although the court may still permit individual parties or attorneys to appear remotely.
Limitations
CR 39(d)* does not apply to jury selection (voir dire) or pretrial proceedings. It also defers to CR 43* on whether witnesses may testify remotely during an in-person trial.
Why It Matters
Remote trials can improve access to justice, reduce costs, and increase scheduling flexibility. However, they also require reliable technology and coordination. Understanding the process outlined in CR 39(d) helps litigants and attorneys make informed decisions about whether a remote trial is right for their case.
If you’re involved in a civil case in Washington State and considering a remote trial, it’s wise to speak with your attorney early in the process to understand your options and the court’s expectations.
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
Does the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) enforce pre-litigation settlement caps? Here’s my point of view.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
Settling Employment Discrimination Claims: EEOC and WSHRC Settlement Caps
People who experience workplace discrimination often have the option to address their claims through federal or state agencies before filing a lawsuit.
NOTE: Individuals pursuing claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must first exhaust the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOCs) administrative prerequisites before filing suit in court — this is mandatory, not optional.
In Washington State, two main agencies that handle these matters are the EEOC and the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC), which enforces state-level protections. A crucial question for those considering settlement through these agencies is whether any financial limits apply to the amount they can recover. The sections below take a closer look at whether such settlement caps exist in either forum.
1. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Settlement Cap
The EEOC* plays a crucial role in handling discrimination claims under federal laws, including Title VII. It investigates claims of discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions, transgender status, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information
In terms of settlement, the EEOC does not impose a specific dollar cap for settlements that occur during its investigation or conciliation process. Instead, the agency facilitates settlement discussions between the claimant (charging party) and the employer (respondent). The settlement amount is generally determined through negotiation and mutual agreement between both parties, with the goal of resolving the dispute efficiently without proceeding to litigation.
However, there are guidelines that could influence the settlement amount:
Back Pay and Front Pay: Settlements may include financial compensation for lost wages (back pay) or future lost wages (front pay), depending on the circumstances of the case.
Compensatory Damages: Claimants may be eligible for compensatory damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, and other non-economic losses. These damages are capped depending on the size of the employer’s business, as prescribed by the Civil Rights Act. See Punitive Damages, below.
Punitive Damages: Title VII allows for the recovery of punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination with malice or reckless indifference. Such recoveries are–similar to compensatory damages–capped depending on the size of the employer’s business.
NOTE: Limits on Compensatory & Punitive Damages. There are limits on the amount of compensatory and punitive damages a person can recover. These limits vary depending on the size of the employer:
• For employers with 15-100 employees, the limit is $50,000.
• For employers with 101-200 employees, the limit is $100,000.
• For employers with 201-500 employees, the limit is $200,000.
• For employers with more than 500 employees, the limit is $300,000.
Attorney’s Fees, Expert Witness Fees, and Court Costs: A victim of discrimination also may be able to recover attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and court costs.
While the EEOC does not impose a strict cap, settlement amounts in cases that the EEOC resolves are often guided by the circumstances of the claim and the financial situation of the employer.
2. Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) Settlement Cap
One notable difference, however, is that the WSHRC has specific caps for pain and suffering awards by administrative law judges (ALJ) under the WLAD. The maximum amount of damages that an appointed ALJ can award to an employment-discrimination claimant for humiliation and mental suffering is $20,000. See RCW 49.60.250(5)*. Moreover, based on my previous communications the WSHRC, even if the parties settle the claim before appointment of an ALJ, the maximum settlement amount a claimant can recover for pain and suffering in a WSHRC-administered settlement remains $20,000. This cap is part of the administrative process under the WLAD and applies specifically to settlements facilitated by the WSHRC before arbitration or filing a lawsuit.
That said, claimants who seek settlements beyond this $20,000 cap still have options. They can pursue private settlements outside of the WSHRC administrative process. In these cases, the parties involved may agree to a settlement that exceeds the WSHRC cap. However–based on my experience–the WSHRC will likely require the parties to report any such settlement to the WSHRC if the claims are still under active investigation by the agency. This reporting requirement ensures that the WSHRC is aware of the resolution, even if it falls outside the agency’s prescribed settlement limits.
Conclusion
Both the U.S. EEOC and the WSHRC provide opportunities for claimants to resolve employment discrimination disputes without proceeding to litigation, but the processes differ in key respects. While the EEOC does not impose a specific settlement dollar cap, settlements are guided by the nature of the claim and the employer’s financial capacity. In contrast, the WSHRC does have a cap for pain and suffering settlements, limiting them to $20,000 under the Washington Law Against Discrimination; claimants seeking to exceed this amount may still pursue private settlements, provided they comply with reporting requirements if the WSHRC is involved in the investigation.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
WHY SOME EMPLOYERS UNLAWFULLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST EMPLOYEES
Why do some employers unlawfully discriminate against their employees? Here’s my point of view.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
Why Employers Might Unlawfully Discriminate Against Their Employees — And Why It Matters
In the modern workplace, anti-discrimination laws have made significant strides in protecting individuals from unfair treatment based on race, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, and other protected characteristics. Despite this progress, workplace discrimination remains a persistent issue. Understanding why employers might engage in discriminatory practices — even in violation of clear legal standards — is critical for legal professionals, HR personnel, and compliance officers alike.
1. Implicit Bias and Stereotyping
Discrimination in the workplace often stems not from overt prejudice, but from unconscious biases—automatic associations and assumptions that can shape decisions without the decision-maker even realizing it. For instance, a supervisor might instinctively view men as more suitable for leadership roles or assume that older employees struggle with new technology. Though these biases may never be expressed aloud, they can influence important employment outcomes such as hiring, promotions, and disciplinary actions, often disadvantaging individuals in legally protected groups.
Legal Considerations:
Courts are increasingly acknowledging the role of implicit bias in employment discrimination cases, especially where patterns of unequal treatment or adverse impact are evident. Under laws like the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), evidence of unconscious bias can support claims of unlawful discrimination—even in the absence of direct or intentional misconduct.
2. Cultural “Fit” and the Homogeneity Trap
Hiring for “cultural fit” is a popular concept in many organizations, especially startups and smaller companies. However, this term can become a euphemism for maintaining homogeneity. Employers may, intentionally or not, exclude candidates who don’t mirror the dominant demographics or communication styles of existing teams.
While the desire for team cohesion is understandable, when “fit” becomes a code word for race, age, gender similarity, or other protected class, the legal exposure increases. Courts and agencies like the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) and U.S. EEOC scrutinize these practices for violation of associated employment-discrimination laws.
3. Economic Rationalizations
Some employers make decisions based on economic stereotypes — for example, assuming women are more likely to take maternity leave, or older workers will demand higher salaries or retire soon. These assumptions can result in discrimination cloaked in cost-saving rhetoric.
Another subtle driver of discrimination is the perceived preference of customers, clients, or even coworkers. For instance, an employer might believe that customers prefer to be served by younger, able-bodied, or white employees — and act accordingly.
Both the WLAD and associated Federal law is clear: employers cannot base employment decisions on customer preferences if those preferences reflect discriminatory bias based on protected class. The WLAD, Title VII, and related statutes do not carve out exceptions for such customer prejudices, no matter how commercially persuasive they might seem.
5. Inadequate Training and Compliance Infrastructure
In some cases, discrimination arises from negligence rather than malice. Employers may lack proper training, or they may fail to implement strong compliance programs that prevent bias from creeping into decision-making. This lack of oversight can result in systematic discrimination that violates state laws — even when no single person intends harm.
The legal lesson is clear: intent is not always required for liability. Under state-based disparate impact theories, a neutral policy or practice that disproportionately harms a protected class can trigger legal consequences, regardless of motive.
6. Combating Discrimination Proactively
For employers, the risk of litigation, reputational damage, and financial penalties should be motivation enough to root out discriminatory practices. For attorneys and compliance professionals, understanding these underlying causes can guide better training, policy design, and internal investigations.
Proactive strategies include but are not limited to:
• Mandatory implicit bias training for hiring managers; • Structured interviews and standardized evaluations; • Diversity audits and statistical monitoring; • Clear, well-enforced anti-discrimination policies.
Conclusion
Discrimination against protected classes is rarely as blatant as it once was — but it is no less real. Whether driven by unconscious bias, flawed business logic, or misplaced priorities, discriminatory practices persist in ways that can expose employers to serious legal risk. Legal professionals must remain vigilant, not only in litigating claims but also in helping organizations recognize and eliminate the subtle forces that sustain inequality.
And for those Washington State employers that fail to heed these warnings: You may find me as opposing counsel in a lawsuit against your organization.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
In Washington State, what are settlement agreements within the context of employment-law litigation? Here’s my point of view.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
Finality Through Compromise: The Role of Settlement Agreements in Employment Law
In employment disputes—often emotionally charged and legally complex—settlement agreements provide a structured and efficient path toward resolution. These agreements, rooted in the well-established principles of contract law, allow employers and employees to avoid the uncertainty and expense of protracted litigation. Courts in Washington, and across the country, consistently support settlements as essential tools for resolving workplace disputes with finality and fairness.
Settlement Agreements: Contracts with Legal Weight
Settlement agreements in the employment context function as legally enforceable contracts and are governed by traditional contract principles—requiring offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent. See Elgiadi v. Wash. State Univ. Spokane, 519 P.3d 939, 941 (Wash. App. 2022) (citing Stottlemyre v. Reed, 35 Wn. App. 169, 171, 665 P.2d 1383 (1983)).
Whether resolving a wrongful termination claim, a wage dispute, or allegations of workplace discrimination, the settlement process formalizes the parties’ agreement to dismiss legal claims in exchange for agreed-upon terms. Once executed, these contracts carry binding legal effect, providing closure and clarity for both employer and employee.
Mutual Concessions: The Nature of Employment Settlements
Employment settlements, like all compromises, involve mutual concessions with parties typically accepting less than what they believe they are entitled to in order to avoid the risks and burdens of litigation. See id. (citing Harding v. Will, 81 Wn.2d 132, 138, 500 P.2d 91 (1972); Strozier v. General Motors Corp., 635 F.2d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 1981); 15B AM. JUR. 2D COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS § 1 (2021)).
This is particularly true in employment disputes, where the cost of litigation, the unpredictability of jury verdicts, and the reputational stakes for both parties can be substantial. Employees may choose to settle for a guaranteed financial payment rather than risk a less favorable outcome at trial. Employers, in turn, often settle to avoid continued liability, disruption to business operations, and additional legal fees. See id. at 942.
A Strong Public Policy Favoring Settlement
Washington courts have repeatedly emphasized the strong public policy favoring settlements “and the finality they afford.” Id. at 941 (citingHaller v. Wallis, 89 Wash.2d 539, 544, 573 P.2d 1302 (1978)). Accordingly, “Washington jurisprudence recognizes a strong public policy encouraging settlements.” Id. at 941-42 (citingAm. Safety Cas. Ins. Co. v. City of Olympia, 162 Wash.2d 762, 772, 174 P.3d 54 (2007); City of Seattle v. Blume, 134 Wash.2d 243, 258, 947 P.2d 223 (1997); Seafirst Ctr. Ltd. P’ship v. Erickson, 127 Wash.2d 355, 366, 898 P.2d 299 (1995)).
In the employment context, this policy promotes quicker resolution of disputes, helping both parties move forward. It also supports a more cooperative legal environment—one that encourages dialogue and resolution rather than extended confrontation. Ultimately, settlements benefit the legal system by conserving judicial resources and providing certainty to the parties involved.
Finality: The Cornerstone of Settlement
A key aspect of any employment settlement agreement is finality. As emphasized in Haller v. Wallis, 89 Wash.2d at 544, 573 P.2d 1302, the legal system disfavors attempts to reopen resolved disputes. Once a settlement is reached and claims are released, the employer should be protected from further liability regarding the same issues.
This principle is especially important for employers, who often settle in order to eliminate the ongoing costs and uncertainties of litigation. Allowing a plaintiff to revisit settled claims would defeat the entire purpose of compromise, exposing employers to renewed legal exposure after paying to resolve the matter.
To ensure finality, settlement agreements in employment cases typically include comprehensive release of claims clauses. These provisions explicitly bar the employee from bringing future claims arising out of the same employment relationship or incident—giving employers the legal certainty they need to close the book on the dispute.
Conclusion
In employment law, where legal claims can carry high financial and reputational stakes, settlement agreements offer a vital path to resolution. Governed by contract principles and bolstered by strong public policy, these agreements serve both employer and employee by delivering certainty, efficiency, and finality. For employers and counsel alike, understanding the enforceability and purpose of settlement agreements is essential in navigating the complex world of workplace disputes.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS — GR 14.1
In the legal world, not all opinions are created equal—especially when it comes to citing them in court. Washington’s General Rule (GR) 14.1* outlines how lawyers and judges can (and can’t) use unpublished opinions, both from Washington and other jurisdictions. The relevant rule states as follows:
GR 14.1
CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS
(a)Washington Court of Appeals. Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are those opinions not published in the Washington Appellate Reports. Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals have no precedential value and are not binding on any court. However, unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals filed on or after March 1, 2013, may be cited as nonbinding authorities, if identified as such by the citing party, and may be accorded such persuasive value as the court deems appropriate.
(b)Other Jurisdictions. A party may cite as an authority an opinion designated “unpublished,” “not for publication,” “non-precedential,” “not precedent,” or the like that has been issued by any court from a jurisdiction other than Washington state, only if citation to that opinion is permitted under the law of the jurisdiction of the issuing court.
(c)Citation of Unpublished Opinions in Subsequent Opinions. Washington appellate courts should not, unless necessary for a reasoned decision, cite or discuss unpublished opinions in their opinions.
(d)Copies of Unpublished Opinions. The party citing an unpublished opinion from a jurisdiction other than Washington shall file and serve a copy of the opinion as an appendix to the pleading in which the authority is cited.
GR 14.1* (emphasis added). Here’s a quick breakdown of what this rule means.
What Are Unpublished Opinions?
In Washington, unpublished opinions from the Court of Appeals are those that aren’t published in the official Washington Appellate Reports. Traditionally, these opinions don’t carry any precedential weight, meaning they aren’t binding on future cases.
Can They Be Cited?
Yes, but with conditions. If the unpublished opinion was filed on or after March 1, 2013, it can be cited—but only as nonbinding authority. The person citing it must clearly label it as such. Courts may consider the opinion’s reasoning persuasive, but they’re not required to follow it.
What About Opinions from Other States?
Washington courts will accept citations to unpublished or non-precedential opinions from other jurisdictions only if the rules of that jurisdiction allow it. So, it’s important to check the laws of the originating court before citing.
Washington Courts Using Unpublished Opinions
Interestingly, Washington appellate courts generally avoid citing unpublished opinions themselves. They’re encouraged to do so only when it’s necessary for making a well-reasoned decision.
One Last Requirement
If you’re citing an unpublished opinion from outside Washington, you’ll need to include a copy of it as an appendix to your filing and properly serve the same. This ensures everyone involved has access to the full context of the case.
FINAL THOUGHTS
GR 14.1 strikes a balance: it allows legal professionals to reference unpublished opinions without giving them undue weight. It opens the door to persuasive arguments while preserving the integrity of Washington’s published case law.
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
Under Washington State laws and regulations, how does the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) progress from complaint to conclusion when processing employment discrimination claims? Here’s my point of view.
(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy before proceeding.)
Advertisement
WSHRC: FROM COMPLAINT TO CONCLUSION
In Washington State, the protection of human rights is a fundamental aspect of ensuring equality and fair treatment for all individuals. The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) serves as a vital resource for individuals who believe they have experienced discrimination in various contexts, including employment, housing, and public accommodations, real estate and credit transactions, and insurance. Understanding the process of filing and handling complaints with the WSHRC is crucial for both complainants and respondents involved in these cases. This article will focus on employment discrimination.
I. Filing a Complaint with the WSHRC
1. Initiating the Process:
Complaints can be filed with the WSHRC through an intake call or an in-person interview. See Washington State Human Rights Commission Website, https://www.hum.wa.gov/employment (last visited 2/16/24). The Intake Unit evaluates the jurisdiction of the complaint and may proceed with an intake questionnaire if it falls within the WSHRC’s purview. See id.
NOTE: WSHRC Jurisdictional Criteria
(a) “Employer has at least 8 employees (does not include religious organizations.” Id. (hyperlink added).
(b) “Signed complaints need to be filed within 6 months of last date of alleged discrimination.” Id.
2. Submission of Intake Questionnaire:
Alternatively, individuals can print out and submit the online intake questionnaire. See id. It is essential to ensure that the intake questionnaire reaches the WSHRC within six months of the alleged discriminatory action. See id.
3. Response to Written Charge:
Upon review, individuals may receive a written charge to sign and return to the WSHRC. See id.
4. Assignment to Investigator:
Once the complaint is filed, it is assigned to an investigator for further examination. See id.
II. Responsibilities of Employers Upon Receiving Notice
1. Timely Response:
Employers must send a written response to the charge within 15 days of receiving notice. See id.
2. Position Statement:
They should articulate their position on the alleged unfair actions. See id.
3. Documentation:
Providing relevant documentation to support their response is imperative. See id.
4. Witness Information:
Employers should furnish witness names and contact information as part of the investigative process. See id.
III. Conducting the Investigation
1. Neutral Fact-Finding:
The WSHRC serves as a neutral fact-finder during investigations, tasked with gathering evidence to determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the law has occurred. This may involve interviewing witnesses and reviewing pertinent documents. See id.
The respondent can offer non-discriminatory reasons for the actions in question. See id.
3. Additional Evidence:
The burden of proof shifts back to the complainant to provide further information connecting the harm to the protected class. See id.
4. Standard of Proof:
For a finding of reasonable cause, the preponderance of evidence must indicate that discrimination occurred. See id.
V. Conclusion of the Investigation
1. Recommendation to Commissioners:
Following the completion of the investigation, WSHRC staff presents a recommendation to the Commissioners. See id.
2. NO FINDING OF DISCRIMINATION
“If the WSHRC finds no discrimination (no reasonable cause), both parties are contacted with that finding.” Id.
3. Finding of Discrimination:
If the WSHRC determines that illegal discrimination has occurred (reasonable cause), efforts are made to reach a voluntary agreement between the parties. If unsuccessful, the complaint may proceed to a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who can impose significant penalties. See id.
CONCLUSION
Navigating the process of filing and handling human rights complaints in Washington State requires adherence to specific procedures and responsibilities outlined by the WSHRC. By understanding these guidelines, both complainants and respondents can engage effectively in the resolution process, ultimately contributing to the promotion of equality and justice within the state.
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
Under Washington State workers’ compensation laws, may an employer discriminate against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim? Here’s my point of view.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
THE WASHINGTON INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE ACT (“ACT”) AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS: DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED
“Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act provides that ‘[n]o employer may discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed or communicated to the employer an intent to file a claim for compensation or exercises any rights provided under this title.'” Robel v. Roundup Corporation, 148 Wn.2d 35, 48-49 (Wash 2002) (citing RCW 51.48.025(1)) (alteration in original) (emphasis added).
The relevant law, RCW 51.48.025(1), states as follows:
Retaliation by employer prohibited—Investigation—Remedies.
(1) No employer may discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed or communicated to the employer an intent to file a claim for compensation or exercises any rights provided under this title. However, nothing in this section prevents an employer from taking any action against a worker for other reasons including, but not limited to, the worker’s failure to observe health or safety standards adopted by the employer, or the frequency or nature of the worker’s job-related accidents.
Id. (emphasis added).
THE COMPLAINT PROCESS
Under the Act, “[a]ny employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by an employer in violation of this section may file a complaint with the director alleging discrimination within ninety days of the date of the alleged violation.” RCW 51.48.025(2) (emphasis added). In this case, the term “‘Director’ means the director of labor and industries.” RCW 51.08.060.
Accordingly, “[u]pon receipt of such complaint, the director shall cause an investigation to be made as the director deems appropriate. Within ninety days of the receipt of a complaint filed under this section, the director shall notify the complainant of his or her determination.” Id.
“If upon such investigation, it is determined that this section has been violated, the director shall bring an action in the superior court of the county in which the violation is alleged to have occurred.” Id.
RIGHT OF PRIVATE ACTION — ADDITIONAL LEGAL THEORIES
However, “[i]f the director determines that this section has not been violated, the employee may institute the action on his or her own behalf.” RCW 51.48.025(3).
IMPORTANT: Pursuant to other laws (e.g., The Washington Law Against Discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, WA State torts, etc.), additional legal theories may form the basis for relief depending on the circumstances of each case. Speak to a knowledgeable employment attorney to learn more.
REMEDIES
“In any action brought under this section, the superior court shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to restrain violations of subsection (1) of this section and to order all appropriate relief including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee with back pay.” RCW 51.48.025(4) (referring to RCW 51.48.025(1)).
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
SUING LOCAL GOVERNMENT — TORTIOUS CONDUCT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND THEIR AGENTS
In Washington State, the process and requirements for individuals to initiate legal proceedings against local (as opposed to state) government entities or their subdivisions are dictated by RCW 4.96*, known as the “Actions Against Political Subdivisions, Municipal and Quasi-Municipal Corporations” statute — or, simply, the “local government tort claim filing statute.”
This legislation details the procedures for filing claims against political subdivisions and municipal bodies–such as counties, cities, towns, special districts, municipal corporations as defined in RCW 39.50.010*, quasi-municipal corporations, any joint municipal utility services authorities, any entities created by public agencies under RCW 39.34.030*, or public hospitals–ensuring that these actions are handled with transparency and fairness while safeguarding public entities from excessive legal challenges.
THE RELEVANT LAW — RCW 4.96.010
The relevant law states as follows:
RCW 4.96.010
Tortious conduct of local governmental entities—Liability for damages.
(1) All local governmental entities, whether acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of their tortious conduct, or the tortious conduct of their past or present officers, employees, or volunteers while performing or in good faith purporting to perform their official duties, to the same extent as if they were a private person or corporation. Filing a claim for damages within the time allowed by law shall be a condition precedent to the commencement of any action claiming damages. The laws specifying the content for such claims shall be liberally construed so that substantial compliance therewith will be deemed satisfactory.
(2) Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, for the purposes of this chapter, “local governmental entity” means a county, city, town, special district, municipal corporation as defined in RCW 39.50.010*, quasi-municipal corporation, any joint municipal utility services authority, any entity created by public agencies under RCW 39.34.030*, or public hospital.
(3) For the purposes of this chapter, “volunteer” is defined according to RCW 51.12.035*.
Presentment and filing requirements — RCW 4.96.020
The associated “Presentment and Filing” section (RCW 4.96.020*) outlines the following procedures for filing claims for damages against local governmental entities, their officers, employees, or volunteers acting in an official capacity, specifically in cases involving tortious conduct.
1. Applicability of the Law — RCW 4.96.020(1)-(2)*:
The provisions apply to all claims for damages against local governmental entities and their officials. The governing body of each entity must appoint an agent to receive claims for damages, and this agent’s identity and contact information must be recorded with the county auditor.
Claims must be submitted to the designated agent within the applicable statute of limitations. Claims are considered presented when they are delivered in person or “received by the agent by regular mail, registered mail, or certified mail, with return receipt requested, to the agent or other person designated to accept delivery at the agent’s office.” Id. If a local government entity fails to meet these requirements, it forfeits the right to raise certain defenses.
3. Claim Form Requirements — RCW 4.96.020(3)(a)-(b)*:
Starting from July 26, 2009, claims must be filed using a standard tort claim form, which is available on the Department of Enterprise Services’ (Office of Risk Management) website, except as allowed under (c) of this subsection.. The form must include:
(a) The claimant’s name, contact information, and date of birth.
(b) A description of the incident, injury, and the circumstances surrounding it.
(c) Details such as the time and place of the incident, names of involved individuals, and the amount of damages claimed.
(d) The claimant’s current residence at the time the claim arose and when the claim is presented.
The claim must be signed by the claimant or their authorized representative.
4. Availability of Forms and Instructions — RCW 4.96.020(3)(c), (e)*:
Local entities are required to make the standard form and instructions available and the name, address, and business hours of the agent of the local governmental entity.
“If a local governmental entity chooses to also make available its own tort claim form in lieu of the standard tort claim form, the form:
(i) May require additional information beyond what is specified under this section, but the local governmental entity may not deny a claim because of the claimant’s failure to provide that additional information[.]
(ii) Must not require the claimant’s social security number; and
(iii) Must include instructions on how the form is to be presented and the name, address, and business hours of the agent of the local governmental entity appointed to receive the claim.
RCW 4.96.020(c)*. “Presenting either the standard tort claim form or the local government tort claim form satisfies the requirements of this chapter*.” RCW 4.96.020(e)* (hyperlink added).
5. Waiver for Incorrect Forms — RCW 4.96.020(3)(d)*:
If the local entity’s form does not comply with the requirements or lists the wrong agent, the entity waives any defense related to those issues, including improper claim presentation or missing information.
The amount of damages specified on the claim form is not admissible at trial.
7. Waiting Period Before Filing Suit — RCW 4.96.020(4)*:
A claimant cannot file a lawsuit for tortious conduct against any local governmental entity, or against any local governmental entity’s officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such capacity, until at least 60 calendar days after properly presenting the claim to the agent. During this 60-day period, the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit is tolled (i.e., suspended). If a lawsuit is filed within five court days after this period, it is considered to have been filed on the first day after the 60-day waiting period.
“With respect to the content of claims under this section and all procedural requirements in this section, this section must be liberally construed so that substantial compliance will be deemed satisfactory.” Id.
CONCLUSION
In Washington State, the local government tort-claim filing statute (i.e., RCW 4.96*) provides a structured process for filing tort claims against local governments in Washington State, with clear instructions regarding the necessary forms, deadlines, and requirements. It emphasizes a liberal approach to compliance to ensure that valid claims are not dismissed due to minor procedural issues.
