Uncategorized Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

October 8, 2026October 8, 2026

Law & Logic: Appeal to Emotion

In logic, what does the term “appeal to emotion“ mean, and how does it apply to employment-law trial lawyers handling workplace disputes? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement

Appeal to Emotion: Understanding Its Role in Washington Employment Discrimination Cases

What Does “Appeal to Emotion” Mean?

In logic and rhetoric, an “appeal to emotion” describes an attempt to persuade an audience by eliciting an emotional response rather than relying primarily on facts and reason.

That concept deserves some nuance in an employment-discrimination case. Workplace discrimination can be intensely personal. An employee may lose a job, a promotion, professional opportunities, income, or a sense of belonging at work. Those experiences can understandably produce anger, embarrassment, fear, or sadness.

The presence of emotion, however, does not automatically make an argument an improper appeal to emotion. The more important question is whether the emotional response is grounded in the evidence or is being used instead of evidence.

video Example: Appeal to Emotion

Why Emotion Can Matter in a Discrimination Case

For many people, employment represents much more than a source of income. A person’s work may be closely tied to financial stability, professional identity, family responsibilities, and personal dignity.

Washington’s Law Against Discrimination, chapter 49.60* RCW, reflects the state’s public policy against certain forms of discrimination and protects employees from discrimination in employment based on specified protected characteristics.

Consequently, the human consequences of alleged discrimination can be relevant to understanding a plaintiff‘s experience and, depending on the claim and evidence, to establishing damages. A plaintiff’s attorney does not have to strip the case of its human dimension in order to present it professionally.

The key is to allow the evidence to establish what happened and then allow the jury to appreciate the significance of those events.

Emotion Cannot Replace Evidence

A plaintiff does not establish employment discrimination merely by demonstrating that an employer‘s conduct was hurtful. The attorney must still present evidence supporting the elements of the particular claim.

That evidence might include communications from decision-makers, employment records, testimony from coworkers, differences in how employees were treated, the timing of significant events, or inconsistencies in the employer’s explanation for an employment decision.

Those facts can be persuasive on their own. They can also have an emotional impact because they describe something that happened to a real person.

Washington’s Evidence Rule 403* illustrates the distinction. Relevant evidence can be excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The concern is not simply that evidence may cause an emotional reaction; rather, the concern is that emotion could cause a factfinder to decide the case for an improper reason instead of evaluating the evidence rationally.

For plaintiff’s counsel, that distinction is important. A compelling presentation should invite the jury to consider the evidence carefully—not ask jurors to disregard the evidence in favor of sympathy.

Telling the Plaintiff’s Story

An employment-discrimination trial involves more than isolated events. The surrounding circumstances can help a jury understand why particular facts matter.

Suppose, for example, that an employee alleges she was treated differently because of a protected characteristic. Her attorney may present evidence concerning how she performed her job, what happened after a particular decision-maker learned of the protected characteristic, how coworkers were treated in comparable circumstances, and what explanation the employer later provided for its actions.

The plaintiff’s personal experience gives those facts context.

If, for example, the evidence shows that an employee lost an important opportunity after years of work, or that she was subjected to degrading treatment before ultimately losing her position, the jury may naturally recognize the seriousness of what occurred. The attorney does not need to manufacture that reaction.

In a strong case, the emotional significance comes from the facts themselves.

When Emotion Becomes a Distraction

The phrase “appeal to emotion” can sometimes be used to suggest that a plaintiff‘s feelings have no place in the courtroom. That is too broad.

A plaintiff’s emotional response does not prove discrimination, but neither does being emotional disprove it. Someone who believes she was unlawfully treated may understandably experience frustration, anger, anxiety, or hurt.

The central questions remain factual and legal:

- What actually happened?
- Who made the relevant decisions?
- What did those individuals know?
- Were similarly situated employees treated differently?
- Did the employer’s explanation change or conflict with the evidence?
- What consequences did the plaintiff experience?

Those questions keep the jury focused on the issues that matter while still allowing the jury to understand the human consequences of the alleged conduct.

The Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Balancing Act

For plaintiff’s counsel, effective advocacy requires finding the right balance.

An attorney who presents only dry facts may fail to communicate the significance of the discrimination to the person who experienced it. On the other hand, an argument centered almost entirely on indignation or sympathy risks distracting the jury from the evidence needed to establish liability.

The stronger approach is to combine the two. Establish the facts. Explain their significance under the applicable law. Then allow the jury to understand the consequences for the plaintiff.

That approach respects the jury’s role and recognizes an important reality of employment litigation: discrimination claims involve legal rights, but they are ultimately experienced by people.

Closing Argument

A plaintiff should not have to choose between presenting the evidence and explaining what that evidence meant in her life. The two can (and often should) work together.

The most effective employment-discrimination cases give jurors a clear factual record, a sound legal framework, and an honest account of the consequences that followed. The plaintiff’s emotions may help convey the human impact of what happened, but they do not have to carry the case. The evidence does that work.

When a plaintiff’s story is supported by credible evidence and fits the requirements of the law, there is no need to rely on sympathy as a substitute for proof. The jury can consider both the legal significance of the conduct and its real-world impact on the person who experienced it.

Read Our Related Articles

» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

» Law & Logic: Ad Hominem

» Law & Logic: Affirming the Consequent

» Law & Logic: Argument from Incredulity

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

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

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Populum

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

» Law & Logic: Complex Question (False Dilemma)

» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Conjunction Fallacy

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

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

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

» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

» Law & Logic: Proper Reasoning (Valid Logic)

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

» Law & Logic: The False Compromise

» Law & Logic: The Straw Man Fallacy

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

–gw

October 3, 2026October 8, 2026

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

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

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

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:

» Unequal pay or benefits

» Disparate impact

» Disparate treatment

» Harassment or hostile work environment

» Wrongful termination or demotion

» Retaliation for reporting discrimination

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

Why Speaking to an Employment Attorney Matters

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

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

Moving Beyond the Stigma

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

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

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

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

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

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

LEARN MORE

–gw

October 1, 2026October 8, 2026

Law & Logic: Argument from Incredulity

In logic, what does the term “Argument from Incredulity“ mean, and how does it apply to employment-law trial lawyers handling workplace disputes? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Argument from Incredulity in Employment-Discrimination Litigation

Employment-discrimination cases often turn on what a decision-maker knew, believed, or intended. Because those questions rarely come with direct evidence, trial attorneys must build their arguments from documents, testimony, chronology, and reasonable inferences. One logical fallacy that can quietly undermine that process is the argument from incredulity.

What Is an Argument from Incredulity?

An argument from incredulity occurs when someone rejects a proposition simply because they cannot imagine, understand, or believe how it could be true.

In its simplest form:

“I cannot see how that could have happened, so it must not have happened.”

The problem is that a person’s inability to understand an explanation is not itself evidence that the explanation is false. In legal proceedings, this distinction is especially important because jurors and lawyers must evaluate evidence rather than substitute personal intuition for proof.

video Example: Argument from Incredulity

How It Can Arise in Employment-Discrimination Cases

Employment-discrimination litigation frequently involves competing explanations for an employment decision. An employer may contend that a termination, demotion, hiring decision, or disciplinary action resulted from a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason*. The employee may argue that the stated reason is pretextual* and that discrimination played a role.

An argument from incredulity can arise when either side treats an apparently difficult-to-explain fact as dispositive.

For example, a defense attorney might argue:

“If the supervisor really discriminated against the employee, why would the supervisor have given the employee a positive performance review six months earlier?”

That question may be relevant. But the fact that the attorney finds the alleged discrimination difficult to reconcile with the earlier review does not establish that discrimination was impossible. The significance of the review must be evaluated alongside the rest of the evidence.

Conversely, a plaintiff’s attorney might argue:

“There is no way a manager could have made this decision without knowing about the employee’s protected characteristic.”

Again, the attorney’s belief about what the manager must have known is not a substitute for evidence establishing knowledge.

The Trial Lawyer’s Better Approach: Evidence, Not Imagination

The antidote to an argument from incredulity is to identify the evidentiary basis for the inference being urged.

Instead of arguing that a competing explanation is simply unbelievable, counsel can examine questions such as:

- What did the decision-maker actually know at the relevant time?
- What documents or communications corroborate that knowledge?
- Does the employer’s explanation remain consistent with contemporaneous records?
- Did similarly situated employees receive comparable treatment?
- Did the employer follow its ordinary procedures?
- Did the stated reason change over time?
- Is there evidence supporting or contradicting the employer’s explanation?
- What reasonable inferences can a factfinder draw from the chronology?

These questions move the analysis from “I cannot believe that” to “What does the evidence show?”

Implications for Depositions and Cross-Examination

The distinction can be particularly useful during depositions and cross-examination. Counsel may encounter testimony that appears implausible or internally inconsistent. The temptation is to ask a witness, in effect, “Do you really expect anyone to believe that?”

A more productive examination ordinarily identifies the facts that make the testimony difficult to reconcile with the record.

For example, rather than relying on incredulity, counsel might establish that a decision-maker received a particular email, reviewed a particular performance document, and then made a decision that the witness now claims was based on something else. The resulting contradiction comes from the evidence itself.

That approach also gives the factfinder a concrete basis for drawing an inference rather than asking the factfinder to adopt counsel’s personal reaction to the testimony.

Closing Argument

Recognizing the argument from incredulity does not mean that implausible testimony should be accepted uncritically. Lawyers routinely ask factfinders to assess whether an explanation is credible. The important distinction is between demonstrating why an explanation is inconsistent with the evidence and asserting that it cannot be true because it seems unbelievable.

For employment-discrimination trial attorneys, that distinction can sharpen both advocacy and analysis. Strong cases are generally built by connecting the requested inference to admissible evidence, chronology, credibility, and the governing legal standard—not merely to what counsel or the jury finds difficult to imagine.

In litigation, “I can’t believe it” may be a starting point for investigation. It is rarely the evidence itself.

Read Our Related Articles

» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

» Law & Logic: Ad Hominem

» Law & Logic: Affirming the Consequent

» Law & Logic: Appeal to Emotion

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

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

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Populum

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

» Law & Logic: Complex Question (False Dilemma)

» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Conjunction Fallacy

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

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

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

» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

» Law & Logic: Proper Reasoning (Valid Logic)

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

» Law & Logic: The False Compromise

» Law & Logic: The Straw Man Fallacy

LEARN MORE

–gw

September 21, 2026September 24, 2026

Cat’s Paw Theory of Liability (WA State)

Cat's Paw Theory of Liability (WA State)

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

Advertisement

CAT’S PAW THEORY OF LIABILITY — SUBORDINATE BIAS LIABILITY

In Washington State, the “cat’s paw” theory of liability is consistent with the law on subordinate bias liability. See Boyd v. State*, 187 Wn.App. 1, 20, 349 P.3d 864 (Div. 2 2015). “Under the cat’s paw theory, the animus of a non-decision-maker who has a singular influence may be imputed to the decision-maker.” Id.* at 21 n.1 (citing Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011)).

THE GENERAL RULE

The general rule is as follows:

[I]f a supervisor* performs an act motivated by … animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable.

Id.* at 20 (citing Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 1194, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011) (footnote omitted)) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis and hyperlink added). Note: the term proximate cause is undefined.

PROXIMATE CAUSE

“Under Washington law, in order for the act to be a proximate cause, it must be a substantial factor.” Id.* (citing City of Vancouver v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 180 Wn.App. 333, 356, 325 P.3d 213 (2014) (“a complainant seeking to use the subordinate bias theory of liability must show that the subordinate’s animus was a substantial factor in the decision”)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS & CAUSATION

Oftentimes, the employer-defendant under a cat’s paw theory of liability will claim that it conducted an “independent investigation” and found an unrelated basis for the adverse employment actions upon which the plaintiff-employee seeks recourse. In such a case, employers will typically argue that the so-called independent investigation was a supervening cause of any retaliatory animus. Nevertheless: “[A]n independent investigation does not necessarily relieve the employer of liability for an adverse employment action.” Id.* (citing Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011)).

If the independent investigation “relies on facts provided by the biased supervisor—as is necessary in any case of cat’s-paw liability—then the employer (either directly or through the ultimate decision maker) will have effectively delegated the factfinding portion of the investigation to the biased supervisor.” Id.* at 18. Accordingly, the plaintiff may have a firm basis to argue that a causal connection exists, depending on the evidence. See, e.g., id.*

However: “[I]f the employer’s investigation results in an adverse action for reasons unrelated to the supervisor’s original biased action … then the employer will not be liable.” Id.* at 18 (citing Staub, 131 S.Ct. at 1193) (alteration in original).

ORIGINS OF CAT’S PAW THEORY OF LIABILITY

“The term ‘cat’s paw’ originated in the fable, ‘The Monkey and the Cat,’ by Jean de La Fontaine[:]

As told in the fable, the monkey wanted some chestnuts that were roasting in a fire. Unwilling to burn himself in the fire, the monkey convinced the cat to retrieve the chestnuts for him. As the cat carefully scooped the chestnuts from the fire with his paw, the monkey gobbled them up. By the time the serving wench caught the two thieves, no chestnuts were left for the unhappy cat.

Id.* at 21 n.1 (citing Julie M. Covel, The Supreme Court Writes A Fractured Fable of the Cat’s Paw Theory in Staub v. Proctor Hospital [Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011)], 51 Washburn L.J. 159, 159 (2011) (footnotes omitted)) (citation alteration in original).

THE CAT & THE MONKEY

“In the workplace, the cat represents an unbiased decision-maker who disciplines an employee unknowingly due to a supervisor’s bias, represented by the monkey.” Id.* (citing Edward G. Phillips, Staub v. Proctor Hospital: The Cat’s Paw Theory Gets Its Claws Sharpened, 47 Tenn. B.J. June, 2011, at 21).

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress & Supervisors*

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

» Suing Supervisors for Discrimination in Washington*

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

September 15, 2026September 17, 2026

WA Code of Judicial Conduct: Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

b WA Code of Judicial Conduct: Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

Under the Washington Code of Judicial Conduct (hereinafter ,”CJC”), to what extent must a full‑time judge actively identify, prevent, and address bias, prejudice, or harassment while carrying out judicial duties? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment Under Washington’s Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 2, Rule 2.3)

Washington’s Code of Judicial Conduct* (CJC) requires full‑time judges to do more than avoid discriminatory behavior. The rules place an affirmative responsibility on judges to recognize when bias or harassment is occurring, to stop it, and to prevent it from shaping the courtroom environment. This duty is central to maintaining public confidence in the fairness of the justice system, and it is reinforced by the associated CJC* comments section, as follows:

[1] A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute.

WA State CJC*, Canon 2, Rule 2.3, comment 1 (emphasis added).

What the Rules Protect Against

Washington’s judicial‑conduct rules bar judges from engaging in behavior that treats people differently because of personal characteristics, and they also require judges to stop others (i.e., court staff, court officials, or others subject to judge’s direction and control; and parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others) from doing so. These protections are intentionally broad. They cover traits such as race, color, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability, age, and financial circumstances. The purpose is straightforward: everyone who enters a courtroom should be treated with equal dignity, regardless of background or identity.

The rules also prohibit harassment, which is understood to include behavior or language that demeans, targets, or expresses hostility toward someone based on these characteristics. This includes obvious misconduct, like insults or slurs, but it also reaches more subtle forms of disrespect that can influence how participants experience the process. The standard is designed to protect both the fairness of the proceeding and the dignity of the individuals involved.

the meaning of bias, prejudice, and harassment

The CJC clarifies the meaning of the terms bias, prejudice, and harassment, as follows:

[2] Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not limited to epithets; slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant references to personal characteristics. Even facial expressions and body language can convey to parties and lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media, and others an appearance of bias or prejudice. A judge must avoid conduct that may
reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased.

[3] Harassment, as referred to in paragraphs (B) and (C)[–see “Black Letter Law” section, below–]is verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a person on bases such as race, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation.

[4] Sexual harassment includes but is not limited to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is unwelcome.

Id.* at comments 2-4 (emphasis added).

A Judge’s Duty to Step In

A defining feature of Washington’s approach is that judges cannot remain passive observers. When discriminatory conduct arises — whether from an attorney, litigant, witness, juror, or court staff — the judge is expected to take reasonable steps to address it. That may involve interrupting inappropriate remarks, redirecting questioning, correcting unequal treatment, or giving instructions that reinforce the expectation of respectful behavior.

The responsibility is both supervisory and corrective. Judges are expected to shape the courtroom environment in real time, ensuring that proceedings remain fair and respectful for everyone involved.

When Sensitive Characteristics Are Relevant

There are situations where a judge must discuss characteristics such as race, gender, or disability because the law requires it. For example, discrimination claims, statutory definitions, or credibility assessments may involve these topics. The CJC* recognizes this reality. What matters is the purpose: the discussion must be tied to the legal or factual issues before the court, not personal views or stereotypes. According to the CJC*:

[5] “Bias or prejudice” does not include references to or distinctions based upon race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, sexual orientation, or social or economic status when these factors are legitimately relevant to the advocacy or decision of the proceeding, or, with regard to administrative matters, when these factors are legitimately relevant to the issues involved.

Id.* at comment 5 (emphasis added).

The Obligation Extends Beyond Hearings

Judicial duties are not limited to trials and hearings. The expectation of impartiality and respectful conduct applies to all judicial activities, including administrative responsibilities, interactions with court staff, and public‑facing functions. A judge’s behavior in any official capacity influences how the public perceives the justice system, and the CJC* requires judges to uphold these standards wherever their role places them.

THE BLACK-LETTER LAW

For purposes of this article, the relevant portion of the CJC* is Canon 2*, as follows:

A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.

Id. Canon 2* contains, inter alia, Rule 2.3 (Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment) that states as follows:

(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.

(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.

(C) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, against parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others.

(D) The restrictions of paragraphs (B) and (C) do not preclude judges or lawyers from making reference to factors that are relevant to an issue in a proceeding.

Id.*

Conclusion

I believe Washington’s Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to be active stewards of fairness. They must recognize and prevent discriminatory behavior, intervene when it occurs, and maintain an environment where every participant is treated with dignity. These obligations reinforce a simple but essential principle: justice depends not only on the decisions judges make, but also on the atmosphere in which those decisions are reached.

*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.

LEARN MORE

–gw

September 7, 2026September 10, 2026

The Tort of Outrage and Racially Discriminatory Action

Under Washington State law, can racially discriminatory action in employment form the basis for the tort of outrage (hereinafter, “tort of outrage” or “intentional infliction of emotional distress”)? 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

THE TORT OF OUTRAGE (ALSO KNOWN AS INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)

A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which remedies may be obtained. The tort of outrage is one type of tort (also known as intentional infliction of emotional distress). It is defined under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, as follows:

(1) One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.

(2) Where such conduct is directed at a third person, the actor is subject to liability if he intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress

(a) to a member of such person’s immediate family who is present at the time, whether or not such distress results in bodily harm, or

(b) to any other person who is present at the time, if such distress results in bodily harm.”

Contreras v. Crown Zellerbach Corp.*, 88 Wn.2d 735, 745, n. 1, 565 P.2d 1173 (Wash. 1977) (emphasis added).

The Tort of Outrage and Racially Discriminatory Action

RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY ACTION & THE TORT OF OUTRAGE

Racially discriminatory action can form the basis for a claim of outrage. According to the Washington State Supreme Court:

In Browning v. Slenderella Systems, 54 Wash.2d 440, 341 P.2d 859 (1959), we held recovery could be premised upon tort liability for emotional distress, unaccompanied by any physical injury where the victim was injured by racially discriminatory action.

Id.* at 739, 565 P.2d 1173 (emphasis added). Within the context of employment discrimination, positions of authority are significant when evaluating associated claims based on the tort of outrage.

Positions of authority

“When one in a position of authority, actual or apparent, over another has allegedly made racial slurs and jokes and comments, this abusive conduct gives added impetus to the claim of outrageous behavior.” Contreras*, 88 Wn.2d at 741, 565 P.2d 1173 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 comment e). Thus, “[t]he relationship between the parties is a significant factor in determining whether liability should be imposed.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I believe racially discriminatory actions in employment can form the basis for the tort of outrage. The tort of outrage, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, is a crucial legal framework for addressing severe emotional harm caused by extreme and outrageous conduct. Defined under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, this tort highlights the accountability of individuals whose actions lead to significant emotional distress, even in the absence of physical injury.

Notably, racially discriminatory actions can serve as a foundation for such claims, as established by Washington case law. Furthermore, the dynamics of authority between the parties play a vital role in evaluating these claims, emphasizing that abusive behavior from those in positions of power can significantly exacerbate the impact of the distress. Depending on the circumstances of each case, understanding these elements may be useful for adequately addressing the complexities of emotional distress claims in civil law.

Learn More

September 1, 2026September 3, 2026

The Perils of Plaintiff Dishonesty or Inaccuracy During Litigation

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

Advertisement

Perils of Plaintiff Dishonesty or Inaccuracy During Employment-Discrimination Litigation

Employment discrimination laws provide an essential avenue for workers to challenge unfair treatment based on protected characteristics such as age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or disability. While these laws are powerful, their effectiveness depends on one critical factor: the honesty of the person bringing the claim. For both attorneys and potential plaintiffs, understanding the risks of dishonesty is key to preserving a viable case.

1. Credibility Drives Outcomes

Many employment disputes ultimately turn on whose version of events is believed. Judges and juries routinely weigh competing accounts from employees and employers. If a plaintiff is caught exaggerating or misstating even part of their story, it can taint their entire testimony. Once credibility is compromised, even strong evidence may carry less weight.

2. False Statements Can Trigger Legal Penalties

Providing inaccurate information in a legal proceeding is more than a tactical error—it can have serious consequences. Statements made under oath must be truthful, and knowingly false testimony can expose a plaintiff to perjury claims. Courts may also impose sanctions, dismiss claims, or require payment of the opposing party’s legal fees if misconduct is found.

3. Dishonesty Weakens the Broader System

When individuals misrepresent facts in discrimination cases, the damage extends beyond a single lawsuit. Such conduct can reinforce skepticism toward future claims and make it harder for others with legitimate grievances to be taken seriously. Maintaining honesty helps preserve the credibility of employment protections as a whole.

4. Attorney-Client Relationships Depend on Transparency

Lawyers are ethically prohibited from knowingly presenting false information. If a client withholds material facts or insists on advancing a false narrative, the attorney may have no choice but to withdraw. Open and truthful communication allows counsel to properly evaluate claims, anticipate defenses, and provide effective representation.

5. The Facts Alone Are Often Enough

There is a common but mistaken belief that embellishment strengthens a claim. In reality, consistent and accurate testimony is far more persuasive. Courts recognize that workplace disputes are complex, and plaintiffs are not expected to have perfect recollection. A candid account—supported by documents, communications, and witness testimony—can be highly compelling.

6. Discovery Will Expose Inconsistencies

Modern litigation involves detailed evidence gathering, including emails, personnel files, and sworn depositions. Inconsistencies between a plaintiff’s statements and the documentary record are often uncovered during this process. Once exposed, even small inaccuracies can become central issues that overshadow the underlying claim.

Conclusion

At its core, a successful employment discrimination claim depends on trust—trust in the facts presented and in the person presenting them. Being truthful does more than satisfy a legal obligation; it strengthens the overall case and preserves its legitimacy under scrutiny. When plaintiffs remain accurate and forthcoming, they give decision-makers a solid foundation on which to evaluate their claims. By contrast, any deviation from the truth can quickly shift attention away from the alleged wrongdoing and onto the plaintiff’s credibility, often with damaging results. For both clients and attorneys, a commitment to honesty is not optional—it is fundamental to achieving a fair and just outcome.

LEARN MORE

–gw

August 25, 2026August 27, 2026

Lie-Detector Tests and Employment

Lie-Detector Tests and Employment (WA State)

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.

RCW 49.44.135.

CRIMINAL CULPABILITY

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

August 20, 2026October 8, 2026

Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

In logic, what does the term Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance) mean, and how does it apply to employment-law trial lawyers handling workplace disputes? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam in Employment-Discrimination Litigation

Employment-discrimination cases often involve a difficult evidentiary problem: discriminatory intent is rarely stated openly. Instead, attorneys frequently must ask judges and juries to draw reasonable conclusions from circumstantial evidence.

One logical fallacy that can arise in this setting is argumentum ad ignorantiam, commonly called an “appeal to ignorance.” Understanding it can help employment attorneys identify flawed arguments and present evidence more effectively.

What Is Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam occurs when someone argues that a proposition must be true because it has not been proven false—or false because it has not been proven true.

For example:

“There is no evidence that the manager discriminated against the employee; therefore, the manager did not discriminate.”

The conclusion does not necessarily follow. The absence of evidence may reflect many things: the conduct was undocumented, witnesses were unavailable, relevant communications were not preserved, or the evidence simply has not been discovered.

The reverse can also be problematic:

“The employer cannot prove that discrimination did not occur; therefore, discrimination occurred.”

That conclusion is equally unwarranted.

video Example: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

Why It Matters in Employment Cases

Discriminatory motive is often established through circumstantial evidence rather than a direct admission. A plaintiff may rely on inconsistent explanations, unusual departures from company procedures, disparate treatment, suspicious timing, remarks by decision-makers, or other facts from which discriminatory intent may reasonably be inferred.

An employer might respond, for example, that there is no email or document stating that a decision was motivated by race, sex, age, disability, or another protected characteristic.

That may be relevant evidence—but it does not automatically establish the absence of discriminatory intent. The important question is what reasonable inference can be drawn from the entire evidentiary record.

“No Evidence” Is Not Always the Same as “Evidence of No”

Trial lawyers should carefully distinguish between these propositions:

• “No witness testified that discrimination occurred.”

• “The evidence establishes that discrimination did not occur.”

The first describes a deficiency or absence in the evidentiary record. The second makes a substantive factual claim. Moving from the first to the second without additional reasoning can constitute an appeal to ignorance.

This distinction can be particularly useful during cross-examination. If a witness says, “I never saw evidence of discrimination,” counsel can explore what the witness actually reviewed, what the witness knew about the decision-making process, and whether the witness is saying discrimination did not occur—or merely that the witness personally encountered no evidence of it.

The Fallacy Has Limits

Not every argument based on a lack of evidence is fallacious.

If a plaintiff bears the burden of proving an element of a discrimination claim and presents insufficient evidence, the defendant may properly argue that the plaintiff failed to meet the applicable burden of proof. That is different from claiming that the absence of proof affirmatively establishes the opposite proposition.

Consequently, attorneys should not invoke argumentum ad ignorantiam simply because opposing counsel discusses missing evidence. The critical question is whether the opposing party is making an inference that logically and legally follows from that absence.

A Practical Lesson for Trial Attorneys

When confronted with an absence-of-evidence argument, counsel can ask three questions:

1. What exactly is the other side claiming the missing evidence proves?

2. Does its absence actually establish that proposition?

3. What affirmative or circumstantial evidence should the factfinder consider instead?

The ultimate issue is not whether every fact has been conclusively established. In many employment cases, the factfinder must evaluate competing inferences from incomplete evidence.

Conclusion

Argumentum ad ignorantiam provides employment-discrimination attorneys with a useful analytical tool. The absence of a “smoking gun” does not necessarily prove that discrimination did not occur, just as the absence of proof that discrimination did not occur does not establish that it did.

The stronger trial argument focuses on the evidence that actually exists, the reasonable inferences it supports, and the governing burden of proof. Logic cannot replace employment law—but it can help lawyers recognize when an opponent’s conclusion goes beyond what the evidence can legitimately establish.

Read Our Related Articles

» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

» Law & Logic: Ad Hominem

» Law & Logic: Affirming the Consequent

» Law & Logic: Appeal to Emotion

» Law & Logic: Argument from Incredulity

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

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

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Populum

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

» Law & Logic: Complex Question (False Dilemma)

» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy

» Law & Logic: Conjunction Fallacy

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

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

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

» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

» Law & Logic: Proper Reasoning (Valid Logic)

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

» Law & Logic: The False Compromise

» Law & Logic: The Straw Man Fallacy

LEARN MORE

–gw

July 19, 2026July 23, 2026

What is Section 1981?

Advertisement

FAQ: What is Section 1981?

answer:

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.

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

Id.*

THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT

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.

NEED HELP?

If you need legal assistance, 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.

Appeal to Emotion: Understanding Its Role in Washington Employment Discrimination Cases

What Does “Appeal to Emotion” Mean?

video Example: Appeal to Emotion

Why Emotion Can Matter in a Discrimination Case

Emotion Cannot Replace Evidence

Telling the Plaintiff’s Story

When Emotion Becomes a Distraction

The Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Balancing Act

Closing Argument

Read Our Related Articles

LEARN MORE

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

The Problem with “Playing the Race Card”

Know Your Rights in Washington State

Why Speaking to an Employment Attorney Matters

Moving Beyond the Stigma

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

Argument from Incredulity in Employment-Discrimination Litigation

What Is an Argument from Incredulity?

video Example: Argument from Incredulity

How It Can Arise in Employment-Discrimination Cases

The Trial Lawyer’s Better Approach: Evidence, Not Imagination

Implications for Depositions and Cross-Examination

Closing Argument

Read Our Related Articles

LEARN MORE

CAT’S PAW THEORY OF LIABILITY — SUBORDINATE BIAS LIABILITY

THE GENERAL RULE

PROXIMATE CAUSE

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS & CAUSATION

ORIGINS OF CAT’S PAW THEORY OF LIABILITY

THE CAT & THE MONKEY

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment Under Washington’s Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 2, Rule 2.3)

What the Rules Protect Against

the meaning of bias, prejudice, and harassment

A Judge’s Duty to Step In

When Sensitive Characteristics Are Relevant

The Obligation Extends Beyond Hearings

THE BLACK-LETTER LAW

Conclusion

LEARN MORE

THE TORT OF OUTRAGE (ALSO KNOWN AS INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)

RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY ACTION & THE TORT OF OUTRAGE

Positions of authority

CONCLUSION

READ MORE OF OUR RELATED ARTICLES

Learn More

Perils of Plaintiff Dishonesty or Inaccuracy During Employment-Discrimination Litigation

1. Credibility Drives Outcomes

2. False Statements Can Trigger Legal Penalties

3. Dishonesty Weakens the Broader System

4. Attorney-Client Relationships Depend on Transparency

5. The Facts Alone Are Often Enough

6. Discovery Will Expose Inconsistencies

Conclusion

LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON STATE: THE LIE-DETECTOR LAW

CIVIL LIABILITY: REMEDIES

CRIMINAL CULPABILITY

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam in Employment-Discrimination Litigation

What Is Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam?

video Example: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

Why It Matters in Employment Cases

“No Evidence” Is Not Always the Same as “Evidence of No”

The Fallacy Has Limits

A Practical Lesson for Trial Attorneys

Conclusion

Read Our Related Articles

LEARN MORE

FAQ: What is Section 1981?

answer:

THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT

Equal Rights in Contracts and Legal Matters

Scope of “Making and Enforcing Contracts”

Protection Against Discrimination