Uncategorized Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

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.

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

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

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

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

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 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.