Category: Retaliation

Posted on

State-Employee Whistleblowers & Retaliatory Action

State-Employee Whistleblowers & Retaliatory Action

Under Washington State laws, what is considered retaliatory action against state-employee whistleblowers?  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



WA State: What is considered retaliatory action against state-employee whistleblowers?

definition of state-employee whistleblower

Please see our article entitled: “Definition of State Employee Whistleblower.” (NOTE: the link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog — an external website.)

dEFINITION OF RETALIATORY ACTION (or reprisal)

The relevant law concerning retaliation against state-employee whistleblowers is found under RCW 42.40.050*, as follows:

RCW 42.40.050.
Retaliatory action against whistleblower—Remedies.

(1)(a) Any person who is a whistleblower, as defined in RCW 42.40.020*, and who has been subjected to workplace reprisal or retaliatory action is presumed to have established a cause of action for the remedies provided under chapter 49.60* RCW [(i.e., The Washington Law Against Discrimination)].

(b) For the purpose of this section, “reprisal or retaliatory action” means, but is not limited to, any of the following:

(i) Denial of adequate staff to perform duties;

(ii) Frequent staff changes;

(iii) Frequent and undesirable office changes;

(iv) Refusal to assign meaningful work;

(v) Unwarranted and unsubstantiated letters of reprimand or unsatisfactory performance evaluations;

(vi) Demotion;

(vii) Reduction in pay;

(viii) Denial of promotion;

(ix) Suspension;

(x) Dismissal;

(xi) Denial of employment;

(xii) A supervisor or superior behaving in or encouraging coworkers to behave in a hostile manner toward the whistleblower;

(xiii) A change in the physical location of the employee’s workplace or a change in the basic nature of the employee’s job, if either are in opposition to the employee’s expressed wish;

(xiv) Issuance of or attempt to enforce any nondisclosure policy or agreement in a manner inconsistent with prior practice; or

(xv) Any other action that is inconsistent compared to actions taken before the employee engaged in conduct protected by this chapter, or compared to other employees who have not engaged in conduct protected by this chapter.

(2) The agency presumed to have taken retaliatory action under subsection (1) of this section may rebut that presumption by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that there have been a series of documented personnel problems or a single, egregious event, or that the agency action or actions were justified by reasons unrelated to the employee’s status as a whistleblower and that improper motive was not a substantial factor.

(3) Nothing in this section prohibits an agency from making any decision exercising its authority to terminate, suspend, or discipline an employee who engages in workplace reprisal or retaliatory action against a whistleblower. However, the agency also shall implement any order under chapter 49.60* RCW (other than an order of suspension if the agency has terminated the retaliator).

RCW 42.40.050* (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

—–

* (NOTE: the link will take the reader away from this website to the  Official Washington State Legislature Website (Revised Code of Washington) — an external governmental website.)

CONCLUSION

Under Washington State laws, state-employee whistleblowers who experience retaliatory actions have various remedies available to them. As defined under RCW 42.40.050, retaliatory actions encompass a wide range of behaviors, including but not limited to denial of adequate staff, unwarranted demotion, and hostile behavior from supervisors or coworkers. However, agencies have the opportunity to rebut these claims by demonstrating documented personnel issues or justifying actions unrelated to whistleblowing.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Definition of State Employee Whistleblower**

» Employment-Discrimination Hotlines & Unlawful Retaliation

» The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

» The Washington State Human Rights Commission**

» Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

» Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

» Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

» Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

» Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

» Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

» Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

» WA State Human Rights Commission Complaints

» WA State Human Rights Commission: Functions, Powers, Duties

» WA State Human Rights Commission: Damages for Humiliation & Suffering**

» WSHRC: From Complaint to Conclusion

** (NOTE: This is an external link that will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog.)

 

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.

Posted on

Employment Law 101: Protected Classes

Employment Law 101: Protected Classes
PROTECTED CLASSES

Under Washington State laws, what are “protected classes” within the context of employment discrimination? 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 



Employment Law 101: Protected Classes
Protected Classes

INTRODUCTION: PROTECTED CLASSES (WA STATE)

Washington State has comprehensive employment-discrimination laws to shield workers from unjust treatment rooted in specific attributes. An integral facet of these legal provisions is the acknowledgment of “protected classes.” This article will enumerate the protected classes within the employment-rights framework of the Washington Law Against Discrimination*.

_____

* NOTE: This link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog, an external website. 

I. The Washington Law Against Discrimination: EMPLOYMENT

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD“)* is a potent statute enacted in 1949, and it covers a broad array of categories including, but not limited to employment, as follows:

Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of civil rights.

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

…

RCW 49.60.030(1)(a) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added). The WLAD protects, inter alia, employees from the unfair practices of employers.

_____

* NOTE: This link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog, an external website. 

II. Unfair Practices of Employers: generally

Under the WLAD, certain employers are prohibited from engaging in specific unfair practices in employment. The relevant law states as follows:

It is an unfair practice for any employer:

[Refuse To Hire]

(1) To refuse to hire any person because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification: PROVIDED, That the prohibition against discrimination because of such disability shall not apply if the particular disability prevents the proper performance of the particular worker involved: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require an employer to establish employment goals or quotas based on sexual orientation.

[Discharge or Bar From Employment]

(2) To discharge or bar any person from employment because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability.

[Discriminate in Compensation or in Other Terms/Conditions of Employment]

(3) To discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability: PROVIDED, That it shall not be an unfair practice for an employer to segregate washrooms or locker facilities on the basis of sex, or to base other terms and conditions of employment on the sex of employees where the commission by regulation or ruling in a particular instance has found the employment practice to be appropriate for the practical realization of equality of opportunity between the sexes.

[Statements, Advertisements, Publications, Applications for Employment, Inquiries in Connection With Prospective Employment]

(4) To print, or circulate, or cause to be printed or circulated any statement, advertisement, or publication, or to use any form of application for employment, or to make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment, which expresses any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification: PROVIDED, Nothing contained herein shall prohibit advertising in a foreign language.

RCW 49.60.180 (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

III. unfair practices of employers: filing or participating in a disrimination complaint (UNLAWFUL RETALIATION)

The WLAD also outlaws certain types of retaliation: “[i]t is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination], or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination].” RCW 49.60.210. Moreover, “[i]t is an unfair practice for a government agency or government manager or supervisor to retaliate against a whistleblower as defined in chapter 42.40 RCW.” RCW 49.60.210.

NOTE: The foregoing unfair practices are based upon specific protected classes.

IV. Defining Protected Classes

Protected classes encompass groups of individuals shielded from discrimination under governmental statutes. Washington State explicitly delineates these classes under the WLAD, recognizing various categories within, inter alia, the realm of employment, including the following:

→ Age (40+)
→ Citizenship/Immigration Status
→ Creed;
→ Filing or Participating in an Employment Discrimination Complaint
→ HIV or Hepatitis C Status;
→ Honorably Discharged Veteran or Military Status;
→ Marital Status;
→ National Origin;
→ Presence of any sensory, mental, or physical Actual Disability or Perceived Disability;
→ Race / Color;
→ Sex (including pregnancy);
→ Sexual Orientation, including Gender Identity;
→ State-Employee or Health-Care Whistleblower Status*;
→ Use of a Trained Dog Guide or Service Animal.

_____

* NOTE: This link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog, an external website. 

v. WLAD remedies

Victims of discrimination in violation of the WLAD may seek generous remedies. “Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in violation of … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination] shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.).” RCW 49.60.030(2).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the exploration of protected classes within Washington State’s employment discrimination laws highlights the state’s commitment to fostering a workplace environment rooted in equality and fairness. The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), a robust statute enacted in 1949, serves as a powerful safeguard against unjust treatment based on specific attributes.

In essence, the WLAD stands as a cornerstone in Washington State’s pursuit of equal opportunities, reinforcing the principles of fairness, justice, and non-discrimination in employment. As we navigate the complexities of the modern workplace, understanding and upholding the rights of protected classes are crucial steps towards creating a truly inclusive and equitable work environment in the Evergreen State.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

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

» Employment Law 101: Legal Theory

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.

–gw

Posted on

Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination’s antiretaliation provision, RCW 49.60.210, is there a cause of action for job applicants who claim a prospective employer refused to hire them in retaliation for prior opposition to discrimination against a different employer? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement
 




WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), it is an unfair practice, with very few exceptions, for an employer to refuse to hire any person, to discharge or bar any person from employment, or to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms and conditions of employment because of age (40+); sex (including pregnancy); marital status; sexual orientation (including gender identity); race; color; creed; national origin; citizenship or immigration status; honorably discharged veteran or military status; HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C status; the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability; the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability; and state employee or health care whistleblower status*.

It is also an unfair practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee because the employee complained about job discrimination or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

(*NOTE: The link will take the reader directly to our Williams Law Group Blog.)

WLAD ANTIRETALIATION PROVISION

The relevant WLAD antiretaliation provision is as follows:

Unfair practices—Discrimination against person opposing unfair practice—Retaliation against whistleblower.

(1) It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by this chapter, or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter.

RCW 49.60.210(1) (emphasis added). The term “employer” is vague.

WLAD DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER

The WLAD definition of the term “employer” is found under RCW 49.60.040(11) and states as follows:

(11) “Employer” includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, who employs eight or more persons, and does not include any religious or sectarian organization not organized for private profit.

Id. The issue is whether this definition also applies to prospective employers. In other words, does the WLAD prohibit retaliatory discrimination by prospective employers against job applicants? The Washington State Supreme Court addressed this issue in Certification From the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of WA in Jin Zhu v. North Central Educational Service District-ESD 171, 404 P.3d 504 (Wash. 2017) .

CERTIFICATION FROM U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN DIST. OF WA in JIN ZHU v. NORTH CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICE DISTRICT–ESD 171

In Cert. From U.S. District Court for Eastern Dist. of WA in Jin Zhu v. North Central Educational Service District-ESD 171, the plaintiff (Zhu) was a job applicant who claimed that “a prospective employer refused to hire [him] in retaliation for prior opposition to discrimination against a different employer[.]” See id. at 506. Zhu subsequently filed suit against the prospective employer in federal district court alleging, inter alia, that it violated WLAD’s antiretaliation statute, RCW 49.60.210(1).

Plaintiff Zhu ultimately “prevailed on his WLAD antiretaliation claim and was awarded damages.” Id. at 507. The defendant (ESD 171) then filed a motion asking, inter alia, “that the district court certify to . . . [the Washington State Supreme Court] the question of RCW 49.60.210(1)’s scope.” Id. (hyperlink added). Accordingly, “the district court granted the motion in part and certified the following question regarding the scope of RCW 49.60.210(1) to . . . [the Washington State Supreme Court]:”

Does RCW 49.60.210(1) create a cause of action for job applicants who claim a prospective employer refused to hire them in retaliation for prior opposition to discrimination against a different employer?

Zhu, 404 P.3d at 507 (internal quotation marks omitted) (hyperlink added).

(*NOTE: The link will take the reader directly to our  Washington Employment Law Digest Blog.)

DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER NOT LIMITED TO CURRENT EMPLOYER

The Washington State Supreme Court answered the certified question in Zhu affirmatively and addressed the plain language and scope of WLAD’s antiretaliation provision, WLAD’s definition of employer, and the policy of WLAD.

The Court ultimately held that “[i]n accordance with the plain language of the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Chapter 49.60 RCW, retaliatory discrimination against job applicants by prospective employers is prohibited by RCW 49.60.210(1)”; therefore, Zhu stated a valid cause of action based on his claim of unlawful retaliation. See Zhu, 404 P.3d at 506 (hyperlinks added).

During its analysis, the Court also expounded on WLAD’s definition of the term “employer” as follows:

[The WLAD definition of employer (RCW 49.60.040(11))] clearly includes prospective employers, and nothing about the statutory context indicates that ‘any employer’ means something different for purposes of the antiretaliation statute than it does for the purposes of the rest of WLAD.

Zhu, 404 P.3d at 509 (emphasis and hyperlink added).

CONCLUSION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination’s antiretaliation provision, RCW 49.60.210, there is a cause of action for job applicants who claim a prospective employer refused to hire them in retaliation for prior opposition to discrimination against a different employer.

READ MORE

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

Definition of Prima Facie Case*

The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

Top 3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog – an external website.

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.

Posted on

WLAD Statute of Limitations

WLAD Statute of Limitations

Under Washington State laws, what is the statute of limitations for claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD)? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement 



THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

The WLAD, chapter 49.60 RCW, “is a state law that prohibits discriminatory practices in the areas of employment, places of public resort, accommodation, or amusement, in real estate transactions, and credit and insurance transactions on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, families with children, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability; and prohibits retaliation against persons who oppose a discriminatory practice, and those who file health care and state employee whistleblower[*] complaints.” Washington State Human Rights Commission Official Website, https://www.hum.wa.gov/about-us (last visited 5/3/23).

_____

* (NOTE: This is an external link that will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog.)

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Definition

A “statute of limitations” is “[a] law that bars claims after a specified period; specif., a statute establishing a time limit for suing in a civil case, based on the date when the claim accrued (as when the injury occurred or was discovered.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1451 (Deluxe 8th ed. 2004). “The purpose of such a statute is to require diligent prosecution of known claims, thereby providing finality and predictability in legal affairs and ensuring that claims will be resolved while evidence is reasonably available and fresh.” Id. The Washington State statute concerning limitation of actions is contained under chapter 4.16 RCW.

THE WLAD Statute of Limitations (3 years)

The statute of limitations for commencing* a WLAD lawsuit is 3 years pursuant to RCW 4.16.080(2). See Lewis v. Lockheed Shipbuilding and Const. Co., 36 Wn.App. 607, 676 P.2d 545 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1984). “RCW 4.16.080 provides in relevant part:

Actions limited to three years. Within three years:

* * *

(2) An action for taking, detaining, or injuring personal property, including an action for the specific recovery thereof, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another not hereinafter enumerated;

Lewis, 36 Wn.App. at 609, 676 P.2d 545 (hyperlink to external website and emphasis added).

_____

* (NOTE: This is an external link that will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog.)

FURTHER SUPPORT

“Further support for applying the 3-year statute [to the WLAD] is found in the Legislature’s directive that RCW 49.60 be liberally construed.” Id. (citing Franklin County Sheriff’s Office v. Sellers, 97 Wash.2d 317, 334, 646 P.2d 113 (1982), cert. denied, — U.S. —-, 103 S.Ct. 730, 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983); Fahn v. Cowlitz County, 93 Wash.2d 368, 374, 610 P.2d 857 (1980)) (hyperlink to external website added).

WARNING

It can be a complicated and difficult process to determine when the statute of limitations begins to run for individual WLAD claims, and an improper determination can bar both claims for prospective lawsuits and administrative relief.

NOTE: Generally, the jurisdictional time limitation for filing WLAD and Title VII complaints of discrimination through administrative agencies such as the Washington State Human Rights Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), respectively, is much shorter than the statute of limitations for commencing WLAD and/or Title VII lawsuits through court — speak to an attorney to learn more.

Therefore, the reader is strongly encouraged to use the assistance of legal counsel to determine when the statute of limitations (or jurisdictional time limitation for administrative agencies) begins to run for individual WLAD claims — please see our DISCLAIMER.

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.

Posted on

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), how do courts apply the Functionally-Similar Test when addressing claims of unlawful retaliation? 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
 




WLAD: THE ANTIRETALIATION PROVISION

The relevant WLAD antiretaliation provision is found under RCW 49.60.210(1), and it states as follows:

(1) It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by this chapter, or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter.

RCW 49.60.210(1) (emphasis added). That provision does not clearly establish what the phrase “other person” means. Washington courts apply the Functionally-Similar Test to, inter alia, determine what “other persons” are subject to WLAD’s antiretaliation provision.

THE FUNCTIONALLY-SIMILAR TEST

Specifically, “Washington courts employ the ‘functionally similar’ test to determine whether the defendant had sufficient control over the plaintiff’s employment to be held personally liable for discriminatory actions.” Certification From the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in Jin Zhu v. North Central Educational Service District-ESD 171, 404 P.3d 504 (Wash. 2017) (referencing Malo v. Alaska Trawl Fisheries, Inc., 92 Wn.app. 927, 930, 965 P.2d 1124 (1998) (coworker without supervisory authority is not personally liable for retaliation)).

Such discriminatory actions include those subject to WLAD’s antiretaliation provision. Accordingly, “[t]he [antiretaliation] section, read as a whole, is directed at entities functionally similar to employers who discriminate by engaging in conduct similar to discharging or expelling a person who has opposed practices forbidden by RCW 49.60.” Malo v. Alaska Trawl Fisheries, Inc., 92 Wn.app. at 930 (emphasis and hyperlink added).

Thus, under the Functionally-Similar Test, a defendant might be held personally liable for discriminatory actions under the Washington Law Against Discrimination–including the antiretaliation provision–if that defendant satisfies any one or more of the following:

» Employs the plaintiff;
» Manages the plaintiff;
» Supervises the plaintiff;
» Is in a position to discharge the plaintiff;
» Is in a position to expel the plaintiff;
»Is in a position to expel plaintiff from membership in any organization.

See id. at 930-31.

EXAMPLE: MALO v. ALASKA TRAWL FISHERIES, INC.

In Malo v. Alaska Trawl Fisheries, Inc., 92 Wn.app. 927, 930, 965 P.2d 1124 (1998), plaintiff Malo sued defendants Alaska Trawl Fisheries and its employee Captain Campbell, “alleging they had taken action against him in retaliation for his opposition to sexual harassment on board the vessel.” Malo, 92 Wn.app. at 928. The trial court dismissed Malo’s claims on summary judgment. Malo appealed.

The Court of Appeals found that Captain Campbell “did not employ, manage or supervise Malo”; and Campbell “was not in a position to discharge Malo or to expel him from membership in any organization.” Id. at 930. Consequently, Campbell did not pass the Functionally-Similar Test, and the court Court of Appeals found that “[b]ecause RCW 49.60.210 does not create personal and individual liability for co-workers, the trial court did not err in dismissing Malo’s claim against Campbell under that statute.” Id. at 930-31 (hyperlink added).

CONCLUSION

The WLAD antiretaliation provision applies to employers, employment agencies, labor unions, or other persons; under the Functionally-Similar Test, “other persons” might be held personally liable for discriminatory actions if that defendant satisfies any one or more of the following:

» Employs the plaintiff;
» Manages the plaintiff;
» Supervises the plaintiff;
» Is in a position to discharge the plaintiff;
» Is in a position to expel the plaintiff;
»Is in a position to expel plaintiff from membership in any organization.

READ MORE ARTICLES

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

Definition of Prima Facie Case*

Employment-Discrimination Hotlines & Unlawful Retaliation

The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

Top 3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog – an external website.

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.

Posted on

Retaliatory Discharge (WA State)

Retaliatory Discharge (WA State)

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, how does one establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge? 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
 




RETALIATORY DISCHARGE (WA STATE):  THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

“In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, … [a plaintiff] must show[:]

(1) he engaged in a statutorily protected activity;

(2) he was discharged or had some adverse employment action taken against him; and

(3) retaliation was a substantial motive behind the adverse employment action.

Davis v. West One Automotive Group, 140 Wn.App. 449, 460 (Div. 3 2007), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1039 (Wash. 2008) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis, hyperlinks, and paragraph formatting added).

EXAMPLE:  DAVIS v. WEST ONE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP

In Davis v. West One Automotive Group, the Washington State Court of Appeals (division 3) determined that plaintiff Davis established a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge based, in part, on the following:

[1] … Davis, an African American, was hired as a salesman for West One in February 2005 and terminated in July 2005.

[2] During the course of his five-month employment, Mr. Davis experienced racially charged comments in the workplace.

[3] On one occasion, West One manager and Mr. Davis’s supervisor … asked Mr. Davis if he knew “why blacks have a day off on Martin Luther King Day?” When Mr. Davis said he did not know, … [his supervisor] responded, “Because they shot and killed his black ass.” Mr. Davis told … [his supervisor] the comment was inappropriate and not to make such a comment again.

[4] Another time, … [Mr. Davis’ supervisor] stated, “Blacks on the eastside, Mexicans on the west; hell I don’t know.” Mr. Davis was offended, and told … [his supervisor] so.

[5] A third incident involved … [Mr. Davis’ supervisor] walking by Mr. Davis’s desk, kicking it and remarking, “What’s up, bitc[#].” Mr. Davis was offended, regarding “bitc[#]” as a derogatory term some African American men use to refer to each other. Mr. Davis again told … [his supervisor] he was offended.

[6] [A] [f]ellow sales employee … also made comments that Mr. Davis found racially offensive. On an occasion when Mr. Davis had customers in the finance office and his telephone rang, … [the co-worker] stopped him from answering stating, “Hey, Buckwheat, you can’t get that call.” Mr. Davis was offended and asked … [the co-worker] to refer to him by name.

…

[7]  Mr. Davis complained to West One Human Resources about … [his co-worker’s] “Buckwheat” comment. No disciplinary action was taken.

[8] At a subsequent staff meeting, [Mr. Davis’ supervisor] discussed generally with the entire staff that, “no use of any type of insensitive name, nickname or not, would be tolerated.”

[9] Because no action had been taken against … [Mr. Davis’ co-worker] and because he regarded … [his supervisor] as “the worst offender of racial discrimination,” Mr. Davis did not complain again.

Id. at 453-54 (internal citations omitted).

In the Court of Appeals, “Mr. Davis claim[ed] he was fired for reporting hostile work environment.” Id. at 460 (hyperlink added). The Court considered, inter alia, the foregoing facts and found, in part, as follows:

This is a protected activity covered by statute and his termination qualifies as an adverse employment action. It is unclear if retaliation was a substantial motive behind the termination. The evidence presented at summary judgment would support a finding either way on the causation issue. This is a jury question.

Id. (internal citations omitted). Thus, the Court determined that plaintiff Davis established a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge and–after applying the McDonnel Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework–concluded that “Summary judgment dismissal of Mr. Davis’s … claim was not appropriate.” Id. at 461.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

Definition of Prima Facie Case**

 McDonnel Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework**

The Prima Facie Case: Discriminatory Discharge

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

Top-3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Top-3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Wrongful Termination

** (NOTE: This is an external link that will take you to our Williams Law Group Blog.)

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.

Posted on

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what is an adverse employment action when pursuing a claim of unlawful retaliation? 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
 




UNLAWFUL RETALIATION:  THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

“To establish a prima facie case* of retaliation [using the McDonnell Douglas ‘evidentiary burden-shifting’ framework*] an employee must show three things:

(1) the employee took a statutorily protected action,

(2) the employee suffered an adverse employment action, and

(3) a causal link between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403, 411, 430 P.3d 229 (2018) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis, paragraphs, and hyperlinks added).

*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog – an external website.

ELEMENT #2:  ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION

The WA State Supreme Court, in majority, has not clearly defined the term “adverse employment action.” However, Federal law and the United States Supreme Court offer some useful guidance on the issue.

-Federal Law

The term “adverse employment action” is undefined under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Accordingly, “the question of what constitutes an adverse employment action has received significant attention from the federal courts, which have not reached a consensus on the issue.” Islamic Society of Fire Department Personnel v. City of New York, 205 F.Supp.2d 75, 82 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (internal citation omitted).

“Some courts, such as the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, have held that an ‘adverse employment action’ relates only to ‘ultimate employment actions,’ such as hiring, firing, promotions and demotions.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

-Ninth Circuit

However, the Ninth Circuit has adopted the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission‘s broad definition which takes an “expansive view” of what may be considered an adverse employment action. Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000).

-U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the Ninth Circuit’s general approach to this question in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 2409 (2006), and held that an adverse employment action must be harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of unlawful conduct by the employer.

CONCLUSION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, the definition of “adverse employment action” can be derived from Ninth Circuit caselaw to mean an employment action that is harmful to the point that it could deter a reasonable employee “from making or supporting a charge or unlawful conduct by the employer.”

READ MORE ARTICLES

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

Definition of Prima Facie Case*

Employment-Discrimination Hotlines & Unlawful Retaliation

The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

Top 3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog – an external website.

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.

Posted on

Top 3 Employment Discrimination Laws

Top 3 Employment Discrimination Laws

As an employment attorney in Washington State, I often litigate claims on behalf of employee-plaintiffs based on several common employment discrimination laws. Here are the top 3 employment discrimination laws that I litigate in Washington State . . .

(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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement
 




#3 — THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 (§ 1981)

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) is a federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981. A plaintiff cannot state a claim under Section 1981 unless he has (or would have) rights under the existing (or proposed) contract that he wishes ‘to make and enforce.’” See Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470, 479-80 (2006). And the employment-at-will relationship is a contract for Section 1981 purposes.

Section 1981 is also known as “Equal rights under the law” and it states as follows:

(a)  STATEMENT OF EQUAL RIGHTS

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

(b)  “MAKE AND ENFORCE CONTRACTS” DEFINED

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c)  PROTECTION AGAINST IMPAIRMENT

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

42 U.S.C. § 1981.

#2 — TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter, “Title VII”) “makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex[;] … makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit[;] … and requires that employers reasonably accommodate applicants’ and employees’ sincerely held religious practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.” U.S. EEOC Website (emphasis added).

Two other federal anti-discrimination laws, inter alia, broaden the protected classes, as follows:

(1) Age Discrimination In Employment Act (ADEA) which protects people who are 40 or older from both discrimination on account of age and unlawful retaliation against a person “because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit”; and

(2) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that prohibits discrimination and unlawful retaliation against a qualified person with a disability. The ADA also “makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.” Further, the ADA requires that “employers reasonably accommodate the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.”

See id.

#1 — THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), it is an unfair practice, with very few exceptions, for an employer to refuse to hire any person, to discharge or bar any person from employment, or to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms and conditions of employment because of age (40+); sex (including pregnancy); marital status; sexual orientation (including gender identity); race; color; creed; national origin; citizenship or immigration status; honorably discharged veteran or military status; HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C status; the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability; and state employee or health care whistleblower status. See RCW 49.60.

It is also an unfair practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee, because the employee complained about job discrimination or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit. See id.

WLAD is a broad and powerful remedial statue that was originally enacted in 1949 as an employment discrimination law. See Fraternal Order of Eagles v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order, 148 Wn.2d 224, 237, 59 P.3d 655 (Wash. 2002) (internal citations omitted); Laws of 1949, ch. 183. Remarkably, Washington State enacted the WLAD 15 years before Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

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.

–gw

Posted on

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

Under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what is statutorily protected activity when pursuing a claim of unlawful retaliation? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement
 




THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

“To establish a prima facie case* of retaliation [using the McDonnell Douglas ‘evidentiary burden-shifting’ framework*] an employee must show three things:

(1) the employee took a statutorily protected action,

(2) the employee suffered an adverse employment action, and

(3) a causal link between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403, 411, 430 P.3d 229 (2018) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis, paragraphs, and hyperlinks added).

*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog – an external website.

ELEMENT #1 — STATUTORILY PROTECTED ACTIVITY

The first element of the prima facie case requires plaintiffs to establish that they “engaged in a statutorily protected activity.” The meaning of this requirement can be found under the anti-retaliation section of the WLAD statute, as follows:

RCW 49.60.210
Unfair practices—Discrimination against person opposing unfair practice—Retaliation against whistleblower.

(1) It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by this chapter, or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter.

(2) It is an unfair practice for a government agency or government manager or supervisor to retaliate against a whistleblower as defined in chapter 42.40 RCW.

(3) It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, government agency, government manager, or government supervisor to discharge, expel, discriminate, or otherwise retaliate against an individual assisting with an office of fraud and accountability investigation under RCW 74.04.012, unless the individual has willfully disregarded the truth in providing information to the office.

RCW 49.60.210 (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

Thus, pursuant to section one, above, statutorily protected activity includes: (1) opposing any practices forbidden by WLAD, or (2) filing a charge, testifying, or assisting in any proceeding under WLAD.

“Violation of this provision [(i.e., RCW 49.60.210)] supports a retaliation claim.” Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 12 Wn.App.2d 557, 570 (Div. 2 2020), review denied, 468 P.3d 616 (2020) (referencing Cornwell, 192 Wn.2d at 411).

READ MORE

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

Definition of Prima Facie Case*

Employment-Discrimination Hotlines & Unlawful Retaliation

The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

Top 3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog – an external website.

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.

Posted on

Top 3 Employment Discrimination Agencies

Top 3 Employment Discrimination Agencies

In Washington State, employees may seek recourse for employment discrimination through federal, state, and local governmental agencies. Here’s my countdown of the top 3 employment discrimination agencies in the state of Washington (based on my point of view as an employment discrimination attorney):

(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
 




#3 — MUNICIPAL CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENTS

Some municipalities (e.g., Seattle Office for Civil Rights, Tacoma Human Rights Commission, etc.) have established departments that work to resolve, inter alia, employment discrimination and retaliation complaints based on protected classes. The services offered by these departments vary from city to city, and not all municipalities in Washington State maintain such departments.

#2 — U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces Federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. You may seek recourse through the EEOC if you experience employment discrimination that involves:

1. Unfair treatment because of your race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

2. Harassment by managers, co-workers, or others in your workplace, because of your race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

3. Denial of a reasonable workplace accommodation that you need because of your religious beliefs or disability.

4. Retaliation because you complained about job discrimination, or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Visit the EEOC Website to learn more.

#1 — WASHINGTON STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, is a state law that prohibits discriminatory practices in the areas of employment, places of public resort, accommodation, or amusement, in real estate transactions, and credit and insurance transactions based on protected classes.

Protected classes include the following: race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, families with children, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability.

WLAD also prohibits retaliation against persons who engage in protected activity in relation to discriminatory practices, and those who file health care and state employee whistleblower complaints.

The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the Washington Law Against Discrimination. It works to prevent and eliminate discrimination through complaint investigation, alternative dispute resolution, and education, training and outreach activities.

Visit the WSHRC Website to get more information.

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.

–gw

Call Now Button