Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what are the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”) regulations concerning a party’s voluntary dismissal? 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 Voluntary Dismissal Under WAC 162-08-268
In Washington State, parties involved in discrimination cases before the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) sometimes choose to withdraw their claims or end their participation in an administrative proceeding. WAC 162-08-268*, titled Voluntary Dismissal, outlines how and when a party may do so—and what legal consequences follow.
1. Dismissal Before the Hearing
Before a hearing begins, the Commission or any party supporting the complaint (hereinafter, “complainant”) may voluntarily dismiss their case or specific claims by filing and serving written notice. See WAC 162-08-268(1)*. This step effectively withdraws those issues from consideration. See id. The only exception applies to cases involving alleged unfair practices in real estate transactions, which are governed by separate rules. See id.
2. Dismissal After the Hearing Has Started
Once a hearing has commenced, the Commission or a complainant may move for voluntary dismissal of the complainant’s case or claim(s) therein; thus, a formal motion is required. See WAC 162-08-268(2)*. If the motion is made before the complainant finishes presenting its opening case, the administrative law judge (ALJ) must grant the dismissal as a matter of right. See id. However, if the motion is made after the complainant has rested, dismissal is discretionary—the ALJ may allow it only for “good cause” and may impose appropriate terms or conditions. See id.
Again, the only exception applies to cases involving alleged unfair practices in real estate transactions, which are governed by separate rules. See id.
3. Legal Effect of a Voluntary Dismissal
Importantly, a voluntary dismissal does not decide the case on the merits. See WAC 162-08-268(2)*. It merely ends the administrative proceeding for the dismissed claim or complainant. See id. The dismissed complainant may still pursue their claims in another forum—such as superior court—if permitted by law and filed within the required time limits. See id.
A dismissal of one claim does not affect any remaining claims, and one complainant’s dismissal does not automatically remove other complainants from the case. See id. However, if the Commission takes a voluntary dismissal of the case in support of the complaint the entire case is closed—”unless the complainant has appeared independently under WAC 162-08-261* or another party has intervened on the complainant’s side pursuant to WAC 162-08-288(4)*, in which circumstance the hearing shall proceed with the remaining parties.” Id.
4. iMPLICATIONS
For complainants and counsel, WAC 162-08-268* provides flexibility to reassess strategy mid-process. Whether to dismiss depends on procedural posture, alternative remedies, and timing. Because dismissal is not a ruling on the merits, parties who wish to pursue their claims in court can generally do so—so long as they act promptly and within statutory deadlines.
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 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 the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, how does one establish a disability-based hostile work environment case via circumstantial evidence? 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: DISABILITY-BASED HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT VIA CIRCUMSTANIAL EVIDENCE
To establish a disability-based hostile work environment case via circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by proving:
(1) that the plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the antidiscrimination statute[, WLAD],
To establish that the harassment was unwelcome, “the plaintiff must show that he or she ‘did not solicit or incite it’ and viewed it as ‘undesirable or offensive.'” Id. (citing Glasgow v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 406, 693, P.2d 708 (Wash. 1985)) (hyperlink added).
THIRD ELEMENT (BECAUSE OF DISABILITY)
To establish that the harassment was “because of disability,” requires “[t]hat the disability of the plaintiff-employee be the motivating factor for the unlawful discrimination.” Id. at 46 (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406, 693 P.2d 708)) (alteration in original). This element requires a nexus between the specific harassing conduct and the particular injury or disability. Id.
FOURTH ELEMENT (TERMS & CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT)
To establish that the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, “the harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id. at (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406, 693 P.2d 708)).
“[A] satisfactory finding on this element should indicate “that the conduct or language complained of was so offensive or pervasive that it could reasonably be expected to alter the conditions of plaintiff’s employment.'” Id. (citing 6A WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CIVIL 330.23, at 240) (alteration in original).
FIFTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO EMPLOYER)
To impute harassment to an employer, “the jury must find either that[:]
(1) an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participate[d] in the harassment or that
(2) the employer … authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonably prompt adequate corrective action.”
Id. at 47 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (second alteration in original) (paragraph formatting added).
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.
FAQ: What qualifies as wrongful termination in Washington?
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
What qualifies as wrongful termination in Washington?
answer:
The terms “wrongful termination” and “wrongful discharge” are synonymous in Washington State and are typically evaluated within the scope of the “at-will” doctrine (hereinafter, “Doctrine”); Washington has been an “at-will” employment state since at least 1928. Under this doctrine, an employer can terminate an at-will employee for any reason—whether it’s no reason at all, a legitimate reason, or even an unethical one—without worrying about legal repercussions. Likewise, unless there is a contract that specifies different terms, employees have the unrestricted right to leave their job at any time (i.e., at will). However, the following three recognized exceptions to the general at-will employment doctrine qualify as wrongful termination in Washington:
(1) The Statutory Exception;
(2) The Judicial Exception; and
(3) The Contractual Exception.
(1) THE STATUTORY EXCEPTION
“First, both Congress and the Washington State Legislature have modified the employment at-will doctrine by limiting employers’ rights to discharge employees.” Ford v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 146 Wn.2d 146, 153, 43 P.3d 1223, (Wash. 2002) (citing National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (1994); Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)* (1994); chapter 49.60* RCW (Washington’s law against discrimination); see also chapter 49.12* RCW (prohibiting discharge of employees for testifying in investigations regarding labor conditions, worker earnings, or sex discrimination); RCW 49.44.090* (prohibiting discharge of employee for being age 40 and over)).
These statutory laws provide an exception to the at-will doctrine that protects the employee’s rights and limits the employer’s ability to discharge an employee at-will.
(2) THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION
Second, Washington courts “have recognized a narrow public-policy exception to an employer’s right to discharge an employee”; this exception is commonly known as “wrongful termination in violation of public policy*.” Id. (referencing Smith v. Bates Technical Coll., 139 Wash.2d 793, 991 P.2d 1135 (2000) (public policy exception to “for-cause” employees); Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931, 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (discharge of armored truck driver who abandoned post to prevent murder violated public policy)).
“Under this exception, an employer does not have the right to discharge an employee when the termination would frustrate a clear manifestation of public policy.” Id. “By recognizing this public policy exception, … [Washington State Supreme Court has] expressed its unwillingness to shield an employer’s action which otherwise frustrates a clear manifestation of public policy.” Id. at 154 (internal quotation marks omitted).
(3) THE CONTRACTUAL EXCEPTION
“Third, employers and employees can contractually modify the at-will employment relationship, eschewing the common law rule in favor of negotiated rights and liabilities.” Id. at 154 (internal citation omitted). “An employer can bargain away its right to discharge an employee without cause by contracting not to do so.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
“The law governing this exception is not a species of the employment at-will doctrine; it is the law of contracts.Therefore, the law of contracts governs an injured party’s right to recover damages under this exception.” Id. at 155 (internal citation omitted). “Unlike a wrongful discharge, a breach of contract is neither immoral nor wrongful; it is simply a broken promise.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
Did you resign from your job?
Even if you resigned from your job, you might still be able to claim wrongful termination in Washington. Take our Constructive Discharge Test (video) to learn more:
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.
Title 42 of the United States Code § 1981 (“Section 1981” or “§ 1981”) is a cornerstone of civil rights law, ensuring equal treatment for all individuals in the U.S., regardless of race. It primarily protects the right to make and enforce contracts–which includes “the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of the contractual relationship”–ensuring that people of all racial backgrounds can participate equally in legal and business affairs. 42 U.S.C. § 1981*. The relevant law states as follows:
42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law
(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.
In the employment context, § 1981 “bars employers from discriminating and retaliating against employees based on the employee’s race[.]” Tank v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 758 F.3d 800, 805 (7th Cir. 2014); see Surrell v. California Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[Section] 1981 prohibits discrimination in the ‘benefits, privileges, terms and conditions’ of employment.”) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b)) (other citation omitted). Thus, Section 1981 specifically prohibits racial discrimination. Jones v. Bechtel, 788 F.2d 571, 574 (9th Cir. 1986).
Equal Rights in Contracts and Legal Matters
Section 1981 guarantees that everyone has the same rights as white citizens to engage in contracts, participate in legal proceedings, and receive legal protections. This includes the ability to sue, give evidence, and ensure the safety of one’s person and property, free from racial discrimination.
Scope of “Making and Enforcing Contracts”
The law goes beyond just the signing of agreements. It covers the entire process of creating, performing, modifying, and terminating contracts. The statute ensures that individuals can enjoy the same benefits and terms within a contractual relationship, regardless of their race or ethnicity.
Protection Against Discrimination
Section 1981 prohibits both governmental and private entities from discriminating based on race in contractual and legal matters. This means individuals are protected from racial bias not only by government actions but also by private employers, businesses, and organizations.
Conclusion
In sum, 42 U.S. Code Section 1981 plays a vital role in ensuring racial equality in contractual and legal rights, supporting fair treatment for all individuals in the U.S. It is an essential tool for protecting civil rights and promoting an equitable society.
FAQ: What are the elements of Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in WA State?
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
What are the elements of Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in WA State?
Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), how may the Washington State Human Rights Commission address the breach of a conciliated agreement? 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
Breach of Conciliated Agreement Under Washington Law
When discrimination complaints are resolved through Washington’s administrative process, the parties may enter into a conciliated agreement approved by the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC). These agreements are designed to eliminate unlawful practices under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60*. But what happens if one party fails to honor the terms of that agreement?
WAC 162-08-109* addresses this issue by outlining the tools available to the Commission’s executive director when a conciliation agreement is breached; it states as follows:
WAC 162-08-109 Breach of conciliated agreement.
If an agreement and order for the elimination of an unfair practice made under RCW 49.60.240* is breached, the executive director may take action appropriate in the circumstances, including one or more of the following:
(1) Specific enforcement. Bringing an action in superior or district court for specific enforcement of the agreement, or for damages pursuant to the conciliation agreement;
(2) Setting aside. Recommending to the commissioners that the agreement and order be set aside, in whole or in part, and that the case be returned to the staff for renewed conference, conciliation and persuasion, or to be referred to commission counsel for hearing; or
(3) Report to prosecuting attorney. Reporting the violation to the appropriate prosecuting attorney for prosecution under RCW 49.60.310*.
WAC 162-08-109* (emphasis and paragraph formatting added).
Options Available to the Commission
Thus, if a party violates the agreement, the executive director may choose one or more of the following steps, depending on the circumstances:
1. Specific Enforcement in Court
The Commission may file an action in superior or district court to enforce the agreement. This could mean seeking a court order that compels compliance with the original terms, or pursuing damages that were provided for in the agreement.
2. Setting Aside the Agreement
The executive director may recommend that the Commissioners void the agreement, in whole or in part. If this occurs, the case can be reopened for further conciliation efforts, or it may be referred to the Commission’s legal counsel for a formal hearing.
3. Referral for Prosecution
In certain cases, the violation may be referred to the appropriate prosecuting attorney for enforcement under RCW 49.60.310*, which provides for criminal penalties in connection with violations of the WLAD.
Why This Rule Matters
For individuals, this rule ensures that entering into a conciliation agreement is not the end of the road—there is accountability if the other party fails to follow through. For attorneys, it highlights the importance of drafting and reviewing conciliation agreements carefully, since breach can lead to renewed litigation, enforcement actions, or even criminal referral.
In short, WAC 162-08-109* underscores that compliance with conciliation agreements is not optional. The Human Rights Commission has meaningful enforcement mechanisms to protect both the integrity of the process and the rights of the parties involved.
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 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 is the idiom “playing the race card” harmful for employment-discrimination victims? 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 “Playing the Race Card” Is a Harmful Idiom—and Shouldn’t Deter Employees in Washington State from Seeking Justice
In today’s workplaces, discussions about race and discrimination remain highly sensitive—and sometimes even controversial. Unfortunately, one phrase often used to undermine these conversations is the idiom “playing the race card.” Though it may seem like a casual expression, this phrase carries derogatory connotations and can have a chilling effect on individuals experiencing racial discrimination.
For employees in Washington State facing unfair treatment based on race, it’s essential to understand that seeking legal help is not only your right—it can be a necessary step in protecting yourself and improving workplace equity for everyone.
The Problem with “Playing the Race Card”
At its core, the idiom “playing the race card” implies that someone is opportunistically or manipulatively invoking their race to gain an advantage or excuse poor behavior. This notion casts doubt on the legitimacy of racial discrimination claims and frames the accuser as disingenuous.
This phrase is problematic for several reasons:
1. It Delegitimizes Genuine Concerns: Using this idiom suggests that raising concerns about racism is inherently suspect or dishonest. This mindset undermines the very real, and often well-documented, existence of racial bias in employment decisions such as hiring, promotions, compensation, and termination.
2. It Discourages Reporting: When people fear being accused of “playing the race card,” they may hesitate to come forward with valid claims. This reluctance allows discriminatory practices to persist unchecked.
3. It Perpetuates Systemic Inequality: Framing race-based complaints as exaggerated or attention-seeking minimizes the systemic nature of racism and prevents meaningful dialogue or change.
Know Your Rights in Washington State
Washington State has some of the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the country. Under both state and federal law, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee or job applicant based on certain protected classes including, but not limited to, race.
If you believe that your employer has treated you unfairly because of your race, you have the right to file a complaint and pursue legal recourse. This may include:
The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) provides legal protection for workers and allows victims to seek remedies such as reinstatement, back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, and attorney’s fees.
Why Speaking to an Employment Attorney Matters
Racial discrimination in the workplace is not always blatant. It can take subtle forms—like being passed over for promotions, consistently receiving worse assignments, or enduring offhand remarks that create a hostile environment. An experienced employment attorney can help assess your situation, gather evidence, and advise you on the best path forward.
Crucially, consulting a lawyer sends a clear message: you are not “playing” at anything—you are asserting your legal rights under the law.
Moving Beyond the Stigma
Challenging racial bias isn’t easy, and it often comes with emotional and professional risks. But phrases like “playing the race card” should not be allowed to shame or silence those who have the courage to speak out.
If you’re experiencing discrimination in your workplace, know that your concerns are valid. You don’t have to tolerate unfair treatment, and you’re not alone. Protect your rights. Seek legal guidance. And remember: justice begins with the decision to stand up and be heard.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
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.
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 WAC 162-08-094: A Simple Explanation of the Investigation Process for Discrimination Complaints in Washington State
If you’ve ever filed or responded to a WSHRC discrimination complaint, it’s helpful to understand how that agency handles investigations. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 162-08-094 outlines key steps in this process. The relevant provision states as follows:
WAC 162-08-094
Investigation.
(1) Copy of complaint to respondent. Except as may be provided for complaints alleging an unfair practice in a real estate transaction, within a reasonably prompt time after a complaint is filed the staff shall furnish a copy of the complaint to the respondent and shall afford the respondent an opportunity to reply in writing. No error or omission in carrying out this step shall affect the validity of the complaint or prevent further processing of it.
(2) Preliminary evaluation of complaint. Whenever the allegations of the complaint, if true, show no basis for commission action, then the staff without further investigation may enter a finding of no reasonable cause or write a recommendation for a finding of no jurisdiction, or other appropriate disposition.
(3) Scope of investigation. The investigation is limited to ascertaining the facts concerning the unfair practice(s) alleged in the complaint. RCW 49.60.240.
WAC 162-08-094*. Here’s a plain-language overview to help you understand what this rule means.
Step 1: Notifying the Respondent
Once a discrimination complaint is filed—except in cases involving real estate—the person or organization being accused (called the respondent) will receive a copy of the complaint. The Commission will also give them a chance to respond in writing. Even if there’s a delay or error in this notification, it doesn’t invalidate the complaint or stop the investigation from moving forward.
Step 2: Early Review of the Complaint
Before launching a full investigation, the Commission takes a preliminary look at the complaint. If, even assuming the allegations are true, there’s no legal basis for the Commission to act, they may decide to:
• Dismiss the complaint (finding “no reasonable cause”),
• Recommend that the Commission doesn’t have jurisdiction (authority),
• Or suggest another appropriate outcome.
This step helps ensure that only valid complaints move forward.
Step 3: Focused Fact-Finding
If the complaint proceeds, the investigation will focus solely on the facts related to the specific unfair practice alleged. This means investigators won’t go on a broad search—they’ll stick to what’s directly relevant to the complaint, as required by state law (RCW 49.60.240*).
In Summary
This rule outlines how the Washington State Human Rights Commission manages the early stages of a discrimination complaint. It ensures that both parties are informed and treated fairly, starting with notification, followed by a careful review to determine if the complaint has legal grounds, and ending with a fact-based investigation focused on the specific issues raised. Understanding this process helps everyone involved know their rights and what steps may come next.
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 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.
(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
Constructive Discharge (or Termination)
In Washington State, resignation from employment is presumed to be voluntary. Molsness v. City of Walla Walla, 84 Wn. App. 393, 398, 928 P.2d 1108 (1996) (citing Sneed v. Barna, 80 Wn. App. 843, 912 P.2d 1035 (1996)). The legal theory of constructive discharge allows plaintiffs to rebut that presumption under both state (i.e., Washington Law Against Discrimination) and federal law (i.e., Title VII and Section 1981).
Constructive Discharge Is an Adverse Employment Action (9th Circuit)
The Ninth Circuit broadly defines an “adverse employment action” as “any action ‘reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity.’” Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840, 850 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2007)). “A constructive discharge–if proven–constitutes an adverse employment action.” Jordan v. Clark, 847 F.2d 1368, 1377 n.10 (9th Cir. 1988) (hyperlink added).
Accordingly, plaintiffs typically use constructive discharge to support viable legal theories of employment discrimination that require adverse employment actions to establish a prima facie case.
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.
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.
FAQ: What is constructive termination in WA State?
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
What is constructive termination in WA State?
answer:
In WA State, a constructive termination (or discharge) arises “where an employerdeliberately makes an employee‘s working conditions intolerable, thereby forcing the employee to resign.” Sneed v. Barna, 80 Wash. App. 843, 849-50, 912 P.2d 1035, review denied, 129 Wash.2d 1023, 919 P.2d 600 (1996) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).
The term “deliberately” entails a deliberate act or a pattern of conduct “of the employer creating the intolerable condition, without regard to the employer’s mental state as to the resulting consequence.” Sneed, 80 Wash.App. at 849-50; Barnett v. Sequim Valley Ranch, LLC, 174 Wn.App. 475, 485, 302 P.3d 500 (Div. 2 2013) (internal citation omitted).
INTOLERABLE WORKING CONDITIONS
Typically, the question of “whether working conditions have risen to an ‘intolerable’ level is a factual question for the jury.” Sneed, 80 Wash.App. at 849 (internal citations omitted). Often, the courts will “look for evidence of either ‘aggravating circumstances’ or a ‘continuous pattern of discriminatory treatment’ to support a constructive discharge claim.” Id. at 850 (internal citations omitted).
THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED (OBJECTIVE STANDARD)
The question to be answered is “whether working conditions would have been so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee’s shoes would have felt compelled to resign.” Id. at 849 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “This is an objective standard and an employee’s subjective belief that he had no choice but to resign is irrelevant.” Barnett, 174 Wn.App. at 485 (citing Travis v. Tacoma Pub. Sch. Dist., 120 Wash.App. 542, 551, 85 P.3d 959 (2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Under Washington State laws, may a person, firm, corporation or the state of Washington (including its political subdivisions or municipal corporations) require employees or prospective employees to take or be subjected to lie-detector tests as a condition of employment or continued employment? Here’s my point of view.
(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)
Advertisement
WASHINGTON STATE: THE LIE-DETECTOR LAW
Under Washington State law, it’s “unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or the state of Washington, its political subdivisions or municipal corporations to require, directly or indirectly, that any employee or prospective employee take or be subjected to any lie detector or similar tests as a condition of employment or continued employment[.]” RCW 49.44.120 (hereinafter, “Lie-Detector Law” or “Law“) (hyperlinks added). However, there are several limitations:
Limitation #1: The Lie-Detector Law does not “apply to persons making application for employment with any law enforcement agency or with the juvenile court services agency of any county, or to persons returning after a break of more than twenty-four consecutive months in service as a fully commissioned law enforcement officer[.]” Id.
Limitation #2: The Law does “not apply to either the initial application for employment or continued employment of persons who manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances as defined in chapter 69.50 RCW, or to persons in sensitive positions directly involving national security.” RCW 49.44.120.
Limitation #3: Nothing in the Law can “be construed to prohibit the use of psychological tests as defined in RCW 18.83.010.” RCW 49.44.120(2).
Limitation #4: Nothing in the Law “may be construed as limiting any statutory or common law rights of any person illegally denied employment or continued employment under this section for purposes of any civil action or injunctive relief.” RCW 49.44.120(5).
NOTE: The Lie-Detector Law defines the term “person” to include “any individual, firm, corporation, or agency or political subdivision of the state.” Id. Violations of the Law can lead to civil liability as well as criminal culpability.
CIVIL LIABILITY: REMEDIES
For civil actions based on violations of RCW 49.44.120, “the court may:
(1) Award a penalty in the amount of five hundred dollars to a prevailing employee or prospective employee in addition to any award of actual damages;
(2) Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing employee or prospective employee; and
(3) Pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, award any prevailing party against whom an action has been brought for a violation of RCW 49.44.120 reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause.
In addition to civil liability, persons violating the Lie-Detector Law are also guilty of a misdemeanor. RCW 49.44.120(3).
CONCLUSION
Washington State’s Lie-Detector Law protects both employees and prospective employees from invasive lie-detector tests used as a condition of employment or continued employment; however, there are several reasonable limitations.
Ultimately, violations of the Law can lead to both civil liability and/or criminal culpability. However, civil litigants should note that the court may award a prevailing defendant “reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause.” Proceed with caution.
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
(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
ORIGIN OF THE DISPARATE IMPACT CLAIM: GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER CO.
In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971), “the [United States] Supreme Court held that Title VII prohibits employment practices that are discriminatory in effect as well as those based on discriminatory intent.” Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 498, 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014) (citing Griggs, 401 U.S. at 429-30) (emphasis in original) (hyperlink added).
“The unanimous Griggs Court reasoned that Title VII‘s purposes could not be achieved unless the statute was construed to bar practices … neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent [that] operate to ‘freeze’ the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.” Kumar, 180 Wn.2d at 498 (citing Griggs, 401 U.S. at 430) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (hyperlink added).
“The [U.S.] Supreme Court therefore held that Title VII barred even a facially neutral job requirement if that requirement disproportionately burdened a protected class, unless the requirement bore a legitimate relation to ‘job performance,’ that is, unless it constituted a ‘business necessity.'” Id. at 498-99 (citing Griggs, 401 U.S. at 431) (hyperlink added). “The Griggs decision created the cause of action now known as a ‘disparate impact’ claim.'”Kumar, 180 Wn.2d at 499 (citing Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 230, 125 S.Ct. 1536, 161 L.Ed.2d 410 (2005)) (emphasis added).
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 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 canons of statutory construction, what is the canon regarding presumption of acquiescence? 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
PRESUMPTION OF ACQUIESCENCE
Under the Presumption-of-Acquiescence canon, “Legislative silence regarding the construed portion of the statute in a subsequent amendment creates a presumption of acquiescence in that construction.” Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Company, 129 Wn.2d 572, 581 (Wash. 1996) (Talmadge, J., concurring) (concluding that the Washington State Legislature “clearly understood it was adopting exemplary damages as part of Washington’s antidiscrimination law when it amended RCW 49.60.030(2) in 1993 and 1995.” (citing Baker v. Leonard, 120 Wash.2d 538, 545, 843 P.2d 1050 (1993). State v. Ritchie, 126 Wash.2d 388, 393, 894 P.2d 1308 (1995). See also State v. Young, 125 Wash.2d 688, 696, 888 P.2d 142 (1995); In re King County Foreclosure of Liens, 117 Wash.2d 77, 86, 811 P.2d 945 (1991) (“the Legislature is presumed to know existing case law in areas in which it is legislating”))). Id.
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, what is the tort of battery? 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 TORT OF BATTERY (WA STATE)
A tort is “[a] civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which a remedy may be obtained, usu. in the form of damages; a breach of a duty that the law imposes on persons who stand in a particular relation to one another.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1526 (8th ed. 2004). The tort of “‘battery’ is an intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff’s person.” Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 504, 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014).
THE ELEMENTS
“A defendant is liable for battery if[:]
(a) he [or she] acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the [plaintiff or a third party], or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and
(b) a harmful or offensive contact with the [plaintiff] directly or indirectly results.
Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13 (1965)) (second-fourth alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).
Thus, “[a] person … commits a battery where he or she performs [a]n act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another’s person and that act is intentional, is not consented to, and is otherwise unprivileged.” Id. at 504 (second alteration in original) (internal citations an quotation marks omitted).
Battery cases often involve one or more of the following Issues: (1) offensive bodily contact, (2) intent, (3) force, and (4) fraud/duress.
(1) OFFENSIVE BODILY CONTACT
In Washington, “[a] bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.” Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 19). “Thus, an offensive contact does not have to result in physical injury to constitute a battery.” Id. (referencing Seigel v. Long, 169 Ala. 79, 53 So. 753 (1910) (“facts established claim for battery where defendant pushed plaintiff’s hat back in order to see his face”); Crawford v. Bergen, 91 Iowa 675, 60 N.W. 205 (1894) (“facts established claim for battery where defendant placed his hand on the plaintiff’s shoulder and asked him an insulting question”)).
Nature of the Contact: “[T]he ‘contact’ element of a battery is simply a harmful or an offensive contact with the plaintiff; thus, a battery can occur where, for example, the plaintiff comes in harmful contact with the ground but never touches the defendant.” Id. at 504 (internal citation omitted).
(2) INTENT
“[T]he ‘intent’ element of battery is satisfied where a defendant knows to a ‘substantial certainty’ that his actions will result in the harmful or offensive touching.” Id. at 504-05 (internal citation omitted).
(3) FORCE
“‘[F]orce’ is not an element of battery.” Id. at 504 (internal citation omitted).
(4) FRAUD/DURESS
“A person therefore commits a battery where he or she performs [a]n act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another’s person and that act is intentional, is not consented to, and is otherwise unprivileged.” Id. at 504 (alteration in original) (internal citations an quotation marks omitted). “These elements are met where the plaintiff’s consent to the contact is procured by fraud or duress.” Id. at 505 (internal citations omitted).
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
THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE (WA STATE)
In Washington State, “[t]he ‘litigation privilege’ is a judicially created privilege that protects participants—including attorneys, parties, and witnesses—in a judicial proceeding against civil liability for statements they make in the course of that proceeding.” Young v. Rayan, 27 Wn.App. 2d 500, 533 P.3d 123 (Wash. App. 2023), review denied, 2 Wash.3d 1008 (Wash. 2023) (internal citations omitted).
witness immunity
When applied to witnesses, this privilege is often referred to as “witness immunity.” See id. Under this principle, witnesses in judicial proceedings are generally granted absolute immunity from legal action based on their testimony, provided their statements are related to the litigation at hand. See id. “Statements are absolutely privileged if they are pertinent or material to the redress or relief sought, whether or not the statements are legally sufficient to obtain that relief.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRIVILEGE
However, statements that are unrelated to the litigation do not receive this protection; not every incidental remark made in court will escape liability. See id. But the threshold for determining relevance is not overly stringent: “As the Restatement (Second) of Torts indicates, a statement ‘need not be strictly relevant to any issue’ so long as it bears ‘some reference to the subject matter of the … litigation.'” Id. (citing RESTATEMENT § 586, comment c).
THE GENERAL RULE
Thus, the Litigation Privilege “prohibits liability stemming from statements
(1) made in the course of a judicial proceeding
(2) that are pertinent to the litigation.
Id. “Pertinency is a question of law reviewed de novo.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
THE POLICY
“The purpose of the litigation privilege doctrine is to encourage frank, open, untimorous argument and testimony and to discourage retaliatory, derivative lawsuits.” Id.
ATTORNEYS
“As applied to attorneys, it furthers ‘a public policy of securing to [counsel] as officers of the court the utmost freedom in their efforts to secure justice for their clients.’” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (alteration in original).
WITNESS TESTIMONY
“As applied to witness testimony, it preserves ‘the integrity of the judicial process by encouraging full and frank testimony.'” Id. (internal citations omitted). “The rule addresses the concern that a witness may either be reluctant to come forward to testify in the first place or shade their testimony ‘to magnify uncertainties, and thus to deprive the finder of fact of candid, objective, and undistorted evidence.'” Id. (internal citation omitted).
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 canons of statutory construction, what is the Pari Materia Rule? 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
CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION
A canon of construction is “[a] rule used in construing legal instruments, esp. contracts and statutes.” Black’s Law Dictionary 219 (8th ed. 2004) (emphasis added).
NOTE: “A frequent criticism of the canons [of construction], made forcefully by Professor Llewellyn many years ago, is that for every canon one might bring to bear on a point there is an equal and opposite canon. This is an exaggeration; but what is true is that there is a canon to support every possible result.” Id. (citing Richard A. Posner, The Federal Courts: Crisis and Reform 276 (1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
THE PARI MATERIA RULE: INTERPRETING CONFLICTING STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Legal statutes can sometimes be difficult to interpret, particularly when different sections of a law appear to contradict one another. In such cases, courts rely on certain principles of interpretation to clarify the law’s intent. One such principle is known as pari materia, a rule of construction used when two provisions within the same statute or related statutes seem to conflict. The rule states as follows:
Reading the statutes in parimateria the rule of construction applies, that as between two conflicting parts of a statute, that part latest in order of position will prevail, where the first part is not more clear and explicit than the last part.
Thus, the pari materia rule states that, when conflicting provisions exist, the more recent one—meaning the provision that comes last in the text—should generally take precedence. However, there’s an important exception to this. If the earlier provision is more precise or clearer in its wording, then it may still outweigh the later provision. This ensures that the most unambiguous and straightforward part of the law is followed, even if it isn’t the most recent.
THE POLICY BEHIND THE RULE
The rationale behind this rule is based on the idea that legal texts evolve over time through amendments, updates, or revisions. As laws change, they may introduce new provisions that supersede older ones. However, if the latest change is unclear or in conflict with the earlier law, courts prioritize clarity and explicit meaning to maintain consistency and avoid confusion in the legal system.
In practice, this rule helps resolve contradictions in a way that reflects the likely intent of lawmakers, allowing the law to adapt to new circumstances while maintaining a logical structure. By applying pari materia, judges can ensure that the most recent and relevant expression of the law is given proper weight, unless it conflicts with the clear intent of previous provisions.
CONCLUSION
The pari materia rule is an essential tool for interpreting statutes that contain conflicting sections. By giving preference to the most recent provisions, while allowing earlier, clearer provisions to take precedence when necessary, it helps ensure that the law remains consistent, coherent, and true to its original intent. This rule strikes a balance between respecting legislative changes and honoring the clarity of earlier laws.
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, what is the definition of hearsay? 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
Definition of Hearsay (WA State)
In the legal profession, there are specific guidelines that dictate how evidence can be used and presented in court. One such guideline involves hearsay, a rule that is central to maintaining fairness and ensuring that the evidence admitted is credible. Washington State law generally follows the principle of excluding hearsay, though there are notable exceptions (NOTE: this article will not address those exceptions). A clear understanding of what hearsay entails, particularly in the context of Washington law, is crucial for litigators.
Rule 801: What Constitutes Hearsay?
In Washington State, Evidence Rule (ER) 801 defines hearsay as follows:
…
(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
ER 801(c)*. In simpler terms, this means that if someone is recounting what they heard or read from another person, that statement is generally regarded as hearsay. (NOTE: Within the ER 801 definition, the term “statement” means “(1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.” Id.* And the term “declarant” means “a person who makes a statement.” Id.*)
example
Thus, Hearsay is essentially an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what is being asserted. In other words, it involves a statement made outside the courtroom, brought into court to establish that the information in the statement is accurate. As a general rule, hearsay is typically not allowed in court due to its inherent unreliability. Since these statements are not made under oath or subjected to cross-examination, they do not undergo the same level of scrutiny as in-court testimony, which can raise questions about their accuracy.
For instance, if a witness testifies, “I overheard my co-worker John say he saw Manager Smith covertly sabotage the plaintiff’s work,” this would be considered hearsay. The purpose of the statement is to prove that manager Smith was indeed the individual that set up the plaintiff for failure. However, since co-worker John is not available to testify in person and be questioned, the statement is generally excluded as unreliable evidence under the hearsay rule.
How Washington State Handles Hearsay
Washington State follows the foundational principles of hearsay outlined in the state’s own Rules of Evidence (specifically Rule 801). These rules provide a structure for determining when a statement qualifies as hearsay and when exceptions to the rule might apply (again, this article does not address those exceptions).
Conclusion
In conclusion, hearsay is an important concept in Washington State law that helps maintain the reliability and fairness of legal proceedings. Defined under ER 801, hearsay refers to an out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of what is being claimed. Generally, hearsay is not allowed in court because it lacks the safeguards of being made under oath or subject to cross-examination; however, there are exceptions beyond the scope of this article. A clear understanding of this rule is essential for legal professionals to ensure only credible evidence is presented in court.
READ MORE
We invite you to read more of our related blog articles:
If you need legal help, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case; our law office litigates claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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 the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what criteria do courts use to determine whether workplace harassment is sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the terms and conditions of employment? Here’s my point of view.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our external blog or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (WA STATE): THE PRIMA FACIE CASE
“To establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show the following four elements:
Loeffelholz v. University of Washington*, 175 Wn.2d 264, 275 (Wash. 2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original) (emphasis and hyperlinks added).
ELEMENT 3: TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
“The third element requires that the harassment be sufficiently pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Davis v. West One Automotive Group*, 140 Wn.App. 449 (Div. 3 2007), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1039 (Wash. 2008) (citingGlasgow v. Georgia-Pac. Corp.*, 103 Wash.2d 401, 406, 693 P.2d 708 (1985)).
criteria COURTS USE to determinE WHETHER harassment affects terms or conditions of employment
The Washington State “Court of Appeals has adopted [the following] criteria ‘[t]o determine whether the harassment is such that it affects the conditions of employment …:
[a] the frequency and severity of the discriminatory conduct;
[b] whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and
[c] whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.'”
Blackburn v. Department of Social and Health Services*, 186 Wn.2d 250, 261 n.4 (Wash. 2016) (citing Washington v. Boeing Co., 105 Wn.App. 1, 10, 19 P.3d 1041 (2000) (citing Sangster v. Albertson’s, Inc.*, 99 Wn.App. 156, 163, 991 P.2d 674 (2000) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)))) (second alteration in original) (paragraph formatting and emphasis added).
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 the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, may an employer require religious affiliation disclosure by employees? 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: RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION DISCLOSURE (RCW 49.60.208)
The relevant law can be found under RCW 49.60.208, and it states as follows:
(1) Require an employee to disclose his or her sincerely held religious affiliation or beliefs, unless the disclosure is for the purpose of providing a religious accommodation at the request of the employee; or
(2) Require or authorize an employee to disclose information about the religious affiliation of another employee, unless the individual whose religious affiliation will be disclosed
(a) expressly consents to the disclosure, and
(b) has knowledge of the purpose for the disclosure.
Under this exception, an employer may require an employee to disclose their “sincerely held religious affiliation or beliefs” if it is for the purpose of providing an employee-requested religious accommodation. Read more about this topic by viewing our article: Failure to Accommodate Religious Practices.
EXCEPTION — BOTH EXPRESS CONSENT AND KNOWLEDGE OF PURPOSE
Under an additional exception, an employer may either authorize or require an employee (“Revealing Employee”) to reveal information about another employee’s (“Subject Employee’s”) religious affiliation if the Subject Employee both expressly consents to the disclosure and has knowledge of the reason for the revelation.
REMEDIES
Under the WLAD, “[a]ny 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).
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
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (WA STATE)
The concept of circumstantial evidence plays an important role in establishing claims and defenses in workplace disputes. While many people are familiar with direct evidence–such as eyewitness testimony or a signed contract–circumstantial evidence can often be just as important in shaping the outcome of a case. In the context of Washington State employment law, understanding what circumstantial evidence is and how it is applied can be essential for both employers and employees navigating disputes.
general definition
Circumstantial evidence is defined as follows:
1. Evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation. — Also termed indirect evidence; oblique evidence. … 2. All evidence that is not given by eyewitness testimony.
Black’s Law Dictionary 595 (Deluxe 8th ed. 2004) (hyperlink added). Thus, circumstantial evidence refers to evidence that indirectly supports a fact or conclusion by inferring its existence from other facts or circumstances. Unlike direct evidence, which provides straightforward proof of a claim (e.g., a video recording of an event), circumstantial evidence relies on a chain of inferences that help establish a fact or raise a presumption about an event or situation.
circumstantial evidence in employment law
In Washington State, as in many other jurisdictions, circumstantial evidence is commonly used in employment law cases to support claims of wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, and other workplace-related issues. In the absence of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence can be pivotal in proving or disproving an employer‘s or employee‘s allegations.
example
For example, in cases of alleged wrongful termination, an employee might not have direct evidence (such as a text message explicitly stating the basis for termination) but can offer circumstantial evidence in support of their claim. This could include evidence such as a history of discriminatory comments, a pattern of different treatment between employees of different races, or the timing of the termination shortly after the employee filed a discrimination complaint — NOTE: these are only a few examples of circumstantial evidence that do not exhaust all possibilities or protected classes.
READ MORE
We invite you to read more of our related blog articles:
If you need legal help, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case; our law office litigates claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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 the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60, what are the sexual harassment and assault policy requirements for hotel, motel, retailer, and security guard entities, and property services contractors? 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
WA State’s Sexual Harassment and Assault Policy Requirements for Specific WA State Employers — Hotel, Motel, Retail, or Security Guard Entity, and Property Services Contractors
Washington State has long been at the forefront of promoting workplace equality and safety. One of the key provisions in this regard is RCW 49.60.515*, a statute within the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), which imposes specific responsibilities on the following employers–who employ an employee–to combat sexual harassment and assault:
» Hotel, Motel, Retail, and Security Guard Entities; and
» Property Services Contractors.
This provision aims to create safer work environments in sectors that may face heightened risks of such behaviors. Below is a breakdown of the law’s requirements and its impact on employers and employees.
1. Adopting a Sexual Harassment Policy (RCW 49.60.515(1)(a))
Under the law, every employer in the specified sectors is required to adopt a comprehensive sexual harassment policy. This policy must explicitly address how sexual harassment will be prevented, identified, and responded to in the workplace. The inclusion of this policy is an essential step in setting clear standards of behavior and ensuring that employees are aware of their rights and responsibilities.
For employers, having a well-defined sexual harassment policy provides guidance on what constitutes inappropriate behavior and how to handle complaints. This policy serves as a preventative measure and a tool for addressing complaints effectively when they arise.
2. Mandatory Training for Employees and Management (RCW 49.60.515(1)(b))
One of the core requirements of this provision is the mandatory training for managers, supervisors, and employees. The training aims to:
• Prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace
• Prevent sexual discrimination
• Educate employees about protections for those who report violations of state or federal laws, rules, or regulations
The training sessions ensure that employees at all levels are aware of the importance of maintaining a respectful and safe work environment. By providing this education, employers can foster a culture of accountability and respect. Additionally, the inclusion of protections for whistleblowers is essential for encouraging employees to report violations without fear of retaliation.
3. Resources for Employees (RCW 49.60.515(1)(c))
In addition to training, employers are required to provide their workforce with a list of resources for those who may experience or witness sexual harassment or assault. At a minimum, this resource list must include contact information for:
• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
• The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC)
• Local advocacy groups focused on preventing sexual harassment and sexual assault
These resources are critical for providing employees with the support and guidance they need to address harassment issues, report incidents, or seek external help if necessary.
4. Panic Buttons for Employees (RCW 49.60.515(1)(d))
In an effort to further enhance the safety of workers in potentially vulnerable situations, the statute mandates that employers in the specified industries provide a panic button to each employee. This panic button is a critical tool for immediate assistance in emergencies, allowing workers to quickly signal for help if they feel threatened or are in danger of harassment or assault.
For employers with fewer than 50 employees, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries* (L&I) is tasked with providing additional guidance on how this requirement will be applied. This provision does not extend to contracted security guard companies licensed under chapter 18.170* RCW, which have separate regulations in place.
5. Reporting and Documentation Requirements for Property Services Contractors (RCW 49.60.515(2))
Property services contractors, including janitorial companies, must adhere to specific reporting requirements. These include submitting the following information to the L&I:
• The date when the sexual harassment policy was adopted
• The number of managers, supervisors, and employees who have completed the mandated training
• The physical address of each work location where janitorial services are performed, along with details about the workforce and hours worked
These reporting measures ensure that contractors are in compliance with the law and provide valuable data for oversight. This information will be made available in aggregate form to the public, allowing for transparency and accountability.
6. Why This Law Matters
RCW 49.60.515* is designed to address specific vulnerabilities in industries where workers may be at higher risk of harassment or assault, such as hotels, motels, and retail spaces. By instituting preventive measures such as training, panic buttons, and clear policies, the law works to ensure that employees have the tools and protections needed to maintain a safe workplace.
Moreover, the law helps reinforce a broader commitment to workplace equality and safety in Washington State, which aligns with national efforts to curb sexual harassment and assault in the workplace.
7. the statutory provision — rcw 49.60.515
The relevant WLAD statutory provision states as follows:
RCW 49.60.515
Sexual harassment and assault policy—Adoption of by hotel, motel, retail, or security guard entity, or property services contractors—Requirements.
(1) Every hotel, motel, retail, or security guard entity, or property services contractor, who employs an employee, must:
(a) Adopt a sexual harassment policy;
(b) Provide mandatory training to the employer’s managers, supervisors, and employees to:
(i) Prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace;
(ii) Prevent sexual discrimination in the workplace; and
(iii) Educate the employer’s workforce regarding protection for employees who report violations of a state or federal law, rule, or regulation;
(c) Provide a list of resources for the employer’s employees to utilize. At a minimum, the resources must include contact information of the equal employment opportunity commission, the Washington state human rights commission, and local advocacy groups focused on preventing sexual harassment and sexual assault; and
(d) Provide a panic button to each employee. The department must publish advice and guidance for employers with fifty or fewer employees relating to this subsection (1)(d). This subsection (1)(d) does not apply to contracted security guard companies licensed under chapter 18.170* RCW.
(2)(a) A property services contractor shall submit the following to the department on a form or in a manner determined by the department:
(i) The date of adoption of the sexual harassment policy required in subsection (1)(a) of this section;
(ii) The number of managers, supervisors, and employees trained as required by subsection (1)(b) of this section; and
(iii) The physical address of the work location or locations at which janitorial services are provided by workers of the property services contractor, and for each location: (A) The total number of workers or contractors of the property services contractor who perform janitorial services; and (B) the total hours worked.
(b) The department must make aggregate data submitted as required in this subsection (2) available upon request.
(c) The department may adopt rules to implement this subsection (2).
(3) For the purposes of this section:
(a) “Department” means the department of labor and industries.
(b) “Employee” means an individual who spends a majority of her or his working hours alone, or whose primary work responsibility involves working without another coworker present, and who is employed by an employer as a janitor, security guard, hotel or motel housekeeper, or room service attendant.
(c) “Employer” means any person, association, partnership, property services contractor, or public or private corporation, whether for-profit or not, who employs one or more persons.
(d) “Panic button” means an emergency contact device carried by an employee by which the employee may summon immediate on-scene assistance from another worker, a security guard, or a representative of the employer.
(e) “Property services contractor” means any person or entity that employs workers: (i) To perform labor for another person to provide commercial janitorial services; or (ii) on behalf of an employer to provide commercial janitorial services. “Property services contractor” does not mean the employment security department or individuals who perform labor under an agreement for exchanging their own labor or services with each other, provided the work is performed on land owned or leased by the individuals.
(f) “Security guard” means an individual who is principally employed as, or typically referred to as, a security officer or guard, regardless of whether the individual is employed by a private security company or a single employer or whether the individual is required to be licensed under chapter 18.170* RCW.
(4)(a) Hotels and motels with sixty or more rooms must meet the requirements of this section by January 1, 2020.
(b) All other employers identified in subsection (1) of this section must meet the requirements of this section by January 1, 2021.
The implementation of RCW 49.60.515 represents a significant step forward in ensuring that employers in high-risk industries take proactive measures to prevent sexual harassment and assault. By requiring sexual harassment policies, training, resources, panic buttons, and regular reporting, this law aims to create safer, more equitable work environments across Washington State. Employers in the specified sectors must familiarize themselves with these requirements to ensure compliance and to create a culture of safety and respect within their organizations. For employees, this law serves as an important safeguard, providing them with the resources and support necessary to navigate and report harassment if it arises.
READ MORE
We invite you to read more of our related blog articles:
If you need legal help, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case; our law office litigates claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter, “Title VII”) is a vital federal law that protects certain individuals (including employees) against certain types of discrimination and retaliation; it also safeguards certain types of accommodations.
DISCRIMINATION AND PROTECTED CLASSES
Title VII outlaws discrimination against individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex (including pregnancy and related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity). The law “also makes it unlawful to use policies or practices that seem neutral but have the effect of discriminating against people because of their race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity), or national origin.” U.S. Department of Justice Website, Laws We Enforce* (last visited 1/10/23).
AGE & DISABILITY: Other federal laws protect against age discrimination (i.e., Age Discrimination in Employment Act or “ADEA”) and disability discrimination (i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act or “ADA”). However, this article will address solely Title VII.
RETALIATION
Retaliation against an individual who has reported discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or taken part in an employment discrimination investigation or litigation is likewise prohibited by Title VII.
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
Lastly, applicants’ and employees‘ genuinely held religious practices must be reasonably accommodated by employers under the legislation, unless doing so would put an undue burden on the employer‘s ability to conduct business.
SCOPE OF TITLE VII
Title VII applies to certain employers (both private and public with 15 or more employees), employment agencies, labor organizations, and training programs and makes it “unlawful to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:
» Hiring and firing;
»Compensation, assignment, or classification of workers;
»Transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
»Job advertisements and recruitment;
»Testing;
»Use of employer facilities;
»Training and apprenticeship programs;
»Retirement plans, leave, and benefits; or
»Other terms and conditions of employment.
U.S. Department of Justice Website, Laws We Enforce* (last visited 1/10/23) (emphasis added). Certain Title VII terms are defined by law.
TITLE VII DEFINITION OF “STATE”
Title VII defines the term “State” as follows:
42 U.S. Code § 2000e – Definitions
…
(i)The term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Wake Island, the Canal Zone, and Outer Continental Shelf lands defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act* [43 U.S.C. 1331* et seq.].
“The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws[, including Title VII,] that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and related conditions, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.” US E.E.O.C. Website, Overview* (last visited 1/10/23).
If you need legal help, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case; our law office litigates claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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.
