Uncategorized Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

August 2, 2022October 21, 2024

Unlawful Employment Agency Practices (Title VII)

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, what are unlawful employment agency practices? 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

TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter, “Title VII”) is a crucial federal law that protects certain individuals (including employees) against certain types of discrimination and retaliation; it also safeguards certain types of accommodations.

Discrimination & 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 someone 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).

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT AGENCY PRACTICES

Employment agencies are subject to Title VII. The following are considered unlawful employment agency practices:

…

(b) Employment agency practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(b) (emphasis added). Victims of discrimination in violation of Title VII may seek enforcement through the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

(*The link will take the reader to an external website: Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute.)

TITLE VII ENFORCEMENT

“The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws 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.” U.S. E.E.O.C. Website, Overview (last visited 1/10/23).

Learn more about filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC by visiting their official website.

Disparate Treatment: Pretext by Comparison

Under the McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting Scheme (hereinafter, “McDonnell Douglas“), may a Washington State plaintiff establish the pretext-prong by comparison, when pursuing a claim of disparate treatment? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS BURDEN-SHIFTING SCHEME

In the summary judgment context, to succeed on a claim of disparate treatment using McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1168 (9th Cir. 2007).

If the plaintiff states a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant-employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the challenged action. Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. Of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks omitted).

If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must then show a triable issue of material fact as to whether the defendant’s stated reason is mere pretext for unlawful discrimination. Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt, Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). This last requirement is know as the prextext prong.

THE PRETEXT PRONG

Generally, to prove pretext under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s articulated reasons

(1) had no basis in fact,

(2) were not really motivating factors for its decision,

(3) were not temporally connected to the adverse employment action, or

(4) were not motivating factors in employment decisions for other employees in the same circumstances.

Id. (internal citation omitted) (emphasis and paragraph formatting added). The fourth element allows a plaintiff to prove pretext by using comparison.

PROVING PRETEXT BY COMPARISON

Accordingly, to prove pretext by comparison in Washington State, a plaintiff must show that

(1) an employee outside the protected class

(2) committed acts of comparable seriousness

(3) but was not demoted or similarly disciplined.

Johnson v. Department of Social & Health Services, 907 P.2d 1223, 80 Wn.App. 212, 227 (Wash.App. Div. 2 1996) (referencing Hiatt v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 26 F.3d 761, 770 (7th Cir.1994)) (paragraph formatting added).

Arguably, acts of comparable seriousness need not be violations of identical company disciplinary rules. See, e.g., Hiatt v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 26 F.3d 761, 770 (7th Cir. 1994) (Court previously held that “acts of comparable seriousness need not be violations of identical company disciplinary rules”) (internal citation omitted). Plaintiffs are free to compare similar conduct, focusing more on the nature of the misconduct rather than on specific company rules. Id. (internal citation omitted).

OCCASIONAL LENIENCY NOT ENOUGH

However, plaintiffs may need to demonstrate more than occasional leniency toward other employees who had engaged in conduct of a similar nature. See id. at 771 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Ultimately, “incomplete or arbitrary comparisons reveal nothing concerning discrimination.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Definition of Prima Facie Case**

» Disparate Treatment: A Closer Look**

» Disparate Treatment: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification**

» Disparate Treatment vs. Disparate Impact Discrimination**

» Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment**

» McDonnell Douglas Framework (Step 1): The Prima Facie Case**

» Prima Facie Case: The Replacement Element**

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment via Direct Evidence

» WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

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

LEARN MORE

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

June 30, 2022October 21, 2024

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), how do courts apply the Functionally-Similar Test when addressing claims of unlawful retaliation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WLAD: THE ANTIRETALIATION PROVISION

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

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

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

THE FUNCTIONALLY-SIMILAR TEST

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

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

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

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

See id. at 930-31.

EXAMPLE: MALO v. ALASKA TRAWL FISHERIES, INC.

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Adverse Employment Actions: A Closer Look

Definition of Prima Facie Case*

Employment-Discrimination Hotlines & Unlawful Retaliation

The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

Top 3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

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

LEARN MORE

June 23, 2022October 21, 2024

Unpaid Contract Wages (WA State)

Under Washington State labor regulations, what are employee remedies for unpaid contract wages? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

UNPAID CONTRACT WAGES — BLACK LETTER LAW

The applicable law is found under both RCW 49.52.050 and .070 — Rebates of Wages and Civil Liability for Double Damages, respectively. The relevant portions of RCW 49.52.050 state as follows:

[RCW 49.52.050 – Rebates of wages–False records–Penalty.]

Any employer or officer, vice principal or agent of any employer, whether said employer be in private business or an elected public official, who

(1) Shall collect or receive from any employee a rebate of any part of wages theretofore paid by such employer to such employee; or

(2) Willfully and with intent to deprive the employee of any part of his or her wages, shall pay any employee a lower wage than the wage such employer is obligated to pay such employee by any statute, ordinance, or contract[ ] …

…

Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Id. (emphasis and paragraph formatting added). The relevant portions of RCW 49.52.070 state as follows:

[RCW 49.52.070 – Civil liability for double damages.]

Any employer and any officer, vice principal or agent of any employer who shall violate any of the provisions of RCW 49.52.050(1) and (2) shall be liable in a civil action by the aggrieved employee or his or her assignee to judgment for twice the amount of the wages unlawfully rebated or withheld by way of exemplary damages, together with costs of suit and a reasonable sum for attorney’s fees: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the benefits of this section shall not be available to any employee who has knowingly submitted to such violations.

RCW 49.52.070 (emphasis and hyperlink added).

UNPAID CONTRACT WAGES — CASE LAW

The court in Clipse v. Commercial Driver Services, Inc., 189 Wn.App. 776, 358 P.3d 464 (Wash.App. Div. 2 2015), found that RCW 49.52.050(2) prohibits an employer from paying an employee a lower wage than the wage such employer is obligated to pay such employee by any statute, ordinance, or contract. Clipse, 189 Wn.App. at 776 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

The court further determined that RCW 49.52.070 creates civil liability, including double damages, costs, and attorney fees, for violations of RCW 49.52.050. Id.

CONCLUSION

Under Washington State labor regulations, employee remedies for unpaid contract wages can include double damages, costs, and attorney fees.

LEARN MORE

June 16, 2022December 12, 2024

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (WA State)

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, how does an employee establish a claim of sexual harassment in the workplace? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD): SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE

In Washington State, there are two types of sexual harassment: (a) quid pro quo; and (b) hostile work environment. This article will address hostile work environment.

“To establish a work environment sexual harassment case … an employee must prove the existence of the following [four] elements[ ][:]”

(1) the harassment was unwelcome;

(2) the harassment was because of sex;

(3) the harassment affected the terms or conditions of employment; and

(4) the harassment is imputed to the employer.

Glasgow v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 406-07 (Wash. 1985) (footnote omitted) (hyperlinks and paragraph formatting added). I will discuss each element in turn.

ELEMENT #1 — THE HARASSMENT WAS UNWELCOME

Under the first element, the employee must prove that the harassment was unwelcome. Thus, “[i]n order to constitute harassment, the complained of conduct must be unwelcome in the sense that the plaintiff-employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the further sense that the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive.” Id. at 406.

ELEMENT #2 — THE HARASSMENT WAS BECAUSE OF SEX

The second element of a claim of sexual harassment in the workplace requires the employee show that the harassment was because of sex/gender. “The question to be answered here is: would the employee have been singled out and caused to suffer the harassment if the employee had been of a different sex? This statutory criterion requires that the gender of the plaintiff-employee be the motivating factor for the unlawful discrimination.” Id.

ELEMENT #3 — THE HARASSMENT AFFECTED THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

Pursuant to the third element, the employee must prove that the sexual harassment affected the terms or conditions of employment. “Casual, isolated or trivial manifestations of a discriminatory environment do not affect the terms or conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate the law.” Id. “The harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id.

TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES TEST: Washington State courts typically look at the totality of the circumstances to evaluate this element. “Whether the harassment at the workplace is sufficiently severe and persistent to seriously affect the emotional or psychological well being of an employee is a question to be determined with regard to the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 406-07.

ELEMENT #4 — THE HARASSMENT IS IMPUTED TO THE EMPLOYER

The final element requires the employee to show the harassment is imputable to the employer; this will depend on the classification of the harassing individual.

(a) Where Owner, Manager, Partner, or Corporate Officer Harasses

“Where an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participates in the harassment, this element is met by such proof.” Id. at 407.

(b) Where Supervisors or Co-Workers Harass

“To hold an employer responsible for the discriminatory work environment created by a plaintiff’s supervisor(s) or co-worker(s), the employee must show that the employer[:]

(a) authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and

(b) failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.

Id. (emphasis and paragraph formatting added). “This may be shown by proving[:]

(a) that complaints were made to the employer through higher managerial or supervisory personnel or by proving such a pervasiveness of sexual harassment at the work place as to create an inference of the employer’s knowledge or constructive knowledge of it and

(b) that the employer’s remedial action was not of such nature as to have been reasonably calculated to end the harassment.

Id. (paragraph formatting and emphasis added).

HOW THE EMPLOYER MAY AVOID LIABILITY

Under WLAD, “an employer may ordinarily avoid liability for sexual harassment by taking prompt and adequate corrective action when it learns that an employee is being sexually harassed.” Glasgow v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 408 (Wash. 1985) (hyperlink added).

WLAD REMEDIES

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

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

Definition of Prima Facie Case*

Harassment & Terms or Conditions of Employment: A Closer Look

Hostile Work Environment: Imputing Harassment to Employer

Hostile Work Environment: Terms or Conditions of Employment

Hostile Work Environment: The Unwelcome Element

McDonnel Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework*

Protected Classes

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (WA State)

Sexual Harassment Policy Requirements for Specific WA Employers

The Prima Facie Case: Hostile Work Environment

Top 3 Hostile Work Environment Issues

WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

WLAD: Imputing Harassment to Employers*

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

LEARN MORE

June 9, 2022October 21, 2024

The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment

Under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what is the prima facie case for disparate treatment discrimination? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE: DISPARATE TREATMENT

Under the WLAD, disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that “occurs when an employer treats some people less favorably than others because of race, color, religion, sex, [disability], [age], or other protected status.” Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC, 178 Wn.App. 734, 743 (Div. 2 2013) (citing Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co., 162 Wn.2d 340, 354 n. 7, 172 P.3d 688 (2007)) (hyperlinks added).

“To establish a prima facie case of … discrimination based on disparate treatment, an employee must show that[:]

(1) the employee belongs to a protected class;

(2) the employer treated the employee less favorably in the terms or conditions of employment

(3) than a similarly situated, nonprotected employee,

(4) who does substantially the same work.

Davis v. West One Automotive Group, 140 Wn.App. 449, 458-59 (Div. 3 2007), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1039 (Wash. 2008) (citing Washington v. Boeing Co., 105 Wash.App. 1, 13, 19 P.3d 1041 (2000) (quoting Johnson v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 80 Wash.App. 212, 227, 907 P.2d 1223 (1996))).

EXAMPLE: DAVIS v. WEST ONE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP

In Davis v. West One Automotive Group, “Davis, an African American, was hired as a salesman for West One in February 2005 and terminated in July 2005.” Id. at 453. “After he was terminated[ ][:]

he brought this action under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter 49.60 RCW, alleging hostile work environment, disparate treatment and retaliatory discharge. The trial court granted West One’s motion for summary judgment dismissal. Mr. Davis appeal[ed].

Id. at 452.

Thereafter, the Washington State Court of Appeals (division 3) determined that plaintiff Davis established a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on the following three specific instances of disparate treatment:

[The Newspaper Photo]

[1] First he claims his picture was not put in the paper when he was salesman of the month, as was custom. West One claims this was a mistake. Mr. Davis testified that when he brought the mistake to West One’s attention, it refused to correct the error by placing his picture in the paper. Whether West One’s actions were a mere mistake or support a claim of disparate treatment is a disputed question of fact.

[The Vehicle]

[2] Mr. Davis next alleges he was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees because he was not permitted to drive any car he wanted as salesman of the month, though [a fellow sales employee] was always permitted to do so. When Mr. Davis was salesman of the month, he elected to drive a BMW. When he took the BMW, he was told to return it for service. There is a factual dispute about whether service was necessary. This dispute presents a question of fact for a jury.

[The Unfair Discipline]

[3] Mr. Davis claims he was held to a higher standard than other employees; he was disciplined more harshly for missing work and being late than were his co-workers. West One disputes this claim. There is conflicting evidence as to the tardiness and truancy of Mr. Davis and other employees, and as to West One’s tolerance, or not, of this behavior.

On this record summary judgment was not appropriate.

Id. at 459 (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held, “We reverse the superior court’s order granting summary judgment dismissal of Mr. Davis’s disparate treatment claim.” Id.

WLAD REMEDIES

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Definition of Prima Facie Case**

» Disparate Treatment

» Disparate Treatment: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification**

» Disparate Treatment vs. Disparate Impact Discrimination**

» Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment**

» McDonnell Douglas Framework (Step 1): The Prima Facie Case**

» Prima Facie Case: The Replacement Element**

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment via Direct Evidence

» WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

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

LEARN MORE

May 6, 2022October 21, 2024

The Right to Inspect Your Personnel File (WA State)

Under Washington State laws, does an employee have a right to inspect their own personnel file? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

RELEVANT LAW

According to Washington State law: “Every employer shall, at least annually, upon the request of an employee, permit that employee to inspect any or all of his or her own personnel file(s).” RCW 49.12.240.

DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this article–and pursuant to the Washington State Industrial Welfare laws–the following definitions for “employer” and “employee” apply:

[DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER]

…

(b) On and after May 20, 2003, ‘employer‘ means any person, firm, corporation, partnership, business trust, legal representative, or other business entity which engages in any business, industry, profession, or activity in this state and employs one or more employees, and includes the state, any state institution, state agency, political subdivisions of the state, and any municipal corporation or quasi-municipal corporation.

However, this chapter and the rules adopted thereunder apply to these public employers only to the extent that this chapter and the rules adopted thereunder do not conflict with:

(i) Any state statute or rule; and

(ii) respect to political subdivisions of the state and any municipal or quasi-municipal corporation, any local resolution, ordinance, or rule adopted under the authority of the local legislative authority before April 1, 2003.

RCW 49.12.005(3)(b), (4) (paragraph formatting and hyperlinks added). The definition of “employee” follows:

[DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE]

…

(4) “Employee” means an employee who is employed in the business of the employee’s employer whether by way of manual labor or otherwise. “Employee” does not include an individual who is at least sixteen years old but under twenty-one years old, in his or her capacity as a player for a junior ice hockey team that is a member of a regional, national, or international league and that contracts with an arena owned, operated, or managed by a public facilities district created under chapter 36.100 RCW.

RCW 49.12.005(4) (paragraph formatting and first hyperlink added).

CONCLUSION

Under Washington State laws, an employer must allow an employee to inspect their own personnel file upon request. Such inspections may occur at least annually.

LEARN MORE

March 24, 2022October 21, 2024

Employee-Handbook Liability

Employment Contracts and At-Will Employment

Under Washington State laws, are employee-handbook promises enforceable, when they address specific treatment in specific situations on which an employee justifiably relies? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

THE AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT DOCTRINE

“Generally, an employment contract indefinite in duration is terminable at will.” Mikkelsen v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Kittitas County, 189 Wn.2d 516, 540 (Wash. 2017) (citing Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219, 223, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984)). According to the “at-will” doctrine, an employer can discharge an at-will employee for no cause, good cause or even cause morally wrong without fear of liability. See Ford v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 146 Wn.2d 146, 152, 43 P.3d 1223, (Wash. 2002) (citing Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219, 226, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Conversely, an employee has the absolute right to quit his or her employment at-will. See id. However, there are three recognized exceptions to the general at-will employment rule: (1) Statutory; (2) Judicial and; (3) Contractual.

EXCEPTION TO THE AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT DOCTRINE: EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS: PROMISES OF SPECIFIC TREATMENT IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS

“[U]nder certain circumstances, employers may be obligated to act in accordance with policies as announced in handbooks issued to their employees.” Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 539-40 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). For example, “if the employer has made promises of specific treatment in specific situations on which the employee justifiably relies, those promises are enforceable and may modify an employee’s at-will status.” Id. at 540 (internal citation omitted).

ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY

“Under this theory, [a plaintiff] … must show [the following:]

[a)] … that a statement (or statements) in an employee manual or handbook or similar document amounts to a promise of specific treatment in specific situations, …

[b)] that the employee justifiably relied on the promise, and …

[c)] that the promise was breached.

Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (paragraph formatting added).

CONSIDERATIONS

1. The Crucial Question

“[T]he crucial question is whether the employee has a reasonable expectation the employer will follow the discipline procedure, based upon the language used in stating the procedure and the pattern of practice in the workplace.” Id. (internal citation omitted) (alteration in original).

2. Questions of Fact

“[W]hether an employment policy manual issued by an employer contains a promise of specific treatment in specific situations, whether the employee justifiably relied on the promise, and whether the promise was breached are questions of fact.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Therefore, summary judgment is proper only if reasonable minds could not differ in resolving these questions.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

3. Ambiguous Discipline Policies Create Issue of Fact

“The Court of Appeals has held that ambiguous discipline policies create an issue of fact as to whether the employer made a binding promise to follow certain discipline procedures.” Id. at 543 (internal citations omitted).

4. Summary Judgment May Not Be Appropriate When Discretionary Language Negated by Other Representations

“[T]he presence of discretionary language may not be sufficient for summary judgment when other representations negate that language.” Id. at 544 (referencing, e.g., Swanson v. Liquid Air Corp., 118 Wn.2d 512, 532, 826 P.2d 664 (1992) (“We reject the premise that this disclaimer can, as a matter of law, effectively serve as an eternal escape hatch for an employer who may then make whatever unenforceable promises of working conditions it is to its benefit to make.”)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

CONCLUSION

Under the Washington State law, “if the employer has made promises of specific treatment in specific situations on which the employee justifiably relies, those promises are enforceable and may modify an employee’s at-will status.” Mikkelsen v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Kittitas County, 189 Wn.2d 516, 540 (Wash. 2017) (internal citations omitted).

RELATED: Read more about this topic by viewing our article entitled: Unenforceable Employment-Contract Provisions and Discrimination Claims (the link will redirect the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog — an external website).

LEARN MORE

February 24, 2022October 21, 2024

Employer Liability for Nonemployee Harassment

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), can an employer be held liable for nonemployee harassment? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

EMPLOYMENT

In Washington State, “[t]he right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to … [t]he right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination[.]” RCW 49.60.030(1)(a).

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (HARASSMENT)

Under the WLAD, certain employers are prohibited from engaging in specific unfair practices in employment. The relevant hostile-work-environment (harassment) law states as follows:

It is an unfair practice for any employer:

…

(3) To discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability[.]

RCW 49.60.180(3). “Under RCW 49.60.030(2), a person discriminated against in violation of the WLAD may bring a civil action.” Larose v. King Cnty., 8 Wash.App.2d 90, 104, 437 P.3d 701 (Wash.App. 2019) (hyperlink added).

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

“To establish a prima facie claim of a hostile work environment the plaintiff must show that:

(1) the harassment was unwelcome,

(2) the harassment was because of … [membership in a protected class],

(3) the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, and

(4) the harassment is imputable to the employer.

See id. (citing Antonius v. King County, 153 Wash.2d 256, 261, 103 P.3d 729 (2004)) (hyperlinks and paragraph formatting added).

THE FOURTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO THE EMPLOYER)

When it comes to nonemployee harassment, the issue is whether the harassment can be imputed to the employer. “[H]arassment will be imputed to the employer if an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participates.” Larose, 8 Wash.App.2d at 105 (citing Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 103 Wash.2d 401, 407, 693 P.2d 708 (1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “An employer will be responsible for harassment by the plaintiff’s supervisors or coworkers if the employer (a) authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and (b) failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.” Id. (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 407) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“A plaintiff can establish knowledge and failure to take adequate corrective action by showing (a) that complaints were made to the employer through higher managerial or supervisory personnel or by proving such a pervasiveness of sexual harassment at the workplace as to create an inference of the employer’s knowledge or constructive knowledge of it and (b) that the employer’s remedial action was not of such nature as to have been reasonably calculated to end the harassment.” Id. (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 407) (internal quotation marks omitted).

EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR NONEMPLOYEE HARASSMENT

In 2019, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2, adopted the federal rule and concluded “that a nonemployee’s harassment of an employee in the workplace will be imputed to an employer if the employer[:]

(a) authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and

(b) failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.

Id. at 111, (internal citations omitted).

CONCLUSION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60, “an employer may be subject to liability for a hostile work environment claim based on a nonemployee’s harassment of an employee in the workplace[ ][,]” under certain circumstances.

Rendering a Verdict: WA State Versus Federal Court

Under both Washington State and federal statutes and court rules, what is the difference in number of jurors required to render a jury verdict in a civil trial? 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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

WASHINGTON STATE

In Washington, only five jurors in a jury of six, or ten jurors in a jury of twelve, are required to render a verdict in a civil trial. RCW 4.44.380. The relevant text is as follows:

In all trials by juries of six in the superior court, except criminal trials, when five of the jurors agree upon a verdict, the verdict so agreed upon shall be signed by the presiding juror, and the verdict shall stand as the verdict of the whole jury, and have all the force and effect of a verdict agreed to by six jurors. In cases where the jury is twelve in number, a verdict reached by ten shall have the same force and effect as described above, and the same procedures shall be followed.

Id. However, pursuant to the Superior Court Civil Rules, “The parties may stipulate that the jury shall consist of any number less than 12 or that a verdict or a finding of a stated majority of the jurors shall be taken as the verdict or finding of the jury.” CR 48.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Alternatively, in the United States District Court, unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the verdict must be unanimous and must be returned by a jury of at least six members; and a jury must begin with at least six and no more than twelve members. FRCP 48. Each juror must partake in the verdict unless they are excused pursuant to Rule 47(c). Id.

CONCLUSION

A significant difference between federal and Washington State court systems appears to be that, unless the parties stipulate otherwise, Washington Superior Courts generally require a specific majority of jurors to render a verdict whereas the United States District Court requires unanimity.

TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Discrimination & protected classes

Retaliation

Reasonable Accommodations

SCOPE OF TITLE VII

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT AGENCY PRACTICES

TITLE VII ENFORCEMENT

READ MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC

need help?

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS BURDEN-SHIFTING SCHEME

THE PRETEXT PRONG

PROVING PRETEXT BY COMPARISON

OCCASIONAL LENIENCY NOT ENOUGH

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

WLAD: THE ANTIRETALIATION PROVISION

THE FUNCTIONALLY-SIMILAR TEST

EXAMPLE: MALO v. ALASKA TRAWL FISHERIES, INC.

CONCLUSION

READ MORE ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

UNPAID CONTRACT WAGES — BLACK LETTER LAW

[RCW 49.52.050 – Rebates of wages–False records–Penalty.]

[RCW 49.52.070 – Civil liability for double damages.]

UNPAID CONTRACT WAGES — CASE LAW

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD): SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE

ELEMENT #1 — THE HARASSMENT WAS UNWELCOME

ELEMENT #2 — THE HARASSMENT WAS BECAUSE OF SEX

ELEMENT #3 — THE HARASSMENT AFFECTED THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

ELEMENT #4 — THE HARASSMENT IS IMPUTED TO THE EMPLOYER

HOW THE EMPLOYER MAY AVOID LIABILITY

WLAD REMEDIES

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE: DISPARATE TREATMENT

EXAMPLE: DAVIS v. WEST ONE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP

[The Newspaper Photo]

[The Vehicle]

[The Unfair Discipline]

WLAD REMEDIES

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

RELEVANT LAW

DEFINITIONS

[DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER]

[DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE]

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE

THE AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT DOCTRINE

EXCEPTION TO THE AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT DOCTRINE: EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS: PROMISES OF SPECIFIC TREATMENT IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS

ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY

CONSIDERATIONS

1. The Crucial Question

2. Questions of Fact

3. Ambiguous Discipline Policies Create Issue of Fact

4. Summary Judgment May Not Be Appropriate When Discretionary Language Negated by Other Representations

CONCLUSION

RELATED: Read more about this topic by viewing our article entitled: Unenforceable Employment-Contract Provisions and Discrimination Claims (the link will redirect the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog — an external website).

LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

EMPLOYMENT

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (HARASSMENT)

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

THE FOURTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO THE EMPLOYER)

EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR NONEMPLOYEE HARASSMENT

CONCLUSION

READ MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC

need help?

WASHINGTON STATE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE