Uncategorized Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

September 18, 2025September 18, 2025

What is Section 1981?

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

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.

September 15, 2025October 2, 2025

What are the elements of Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in WA State?

Advertisement

What are the elements of Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in WA State?

answer:

“An employee claiming his or her employer failed to accommodate a disability must prove that[:]

(1) the employee suffered from a disability,

(2) the employee was qualified to do the job at issue,

(3) the employee gave his or her employer notice of the disability, and

(4) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate that disability.

Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc.*, 12 Wn.App.2d 557, 586 (Div. 2 2020), review denied, 468 P.3d 616 (2020) (citing LaRose v. King County, 8 Wn.App.2d 90, 125-26, 437 P.3d 701 (2019)) (paragraph formatting, emphasis, and hyperlinks added).

The above elements formulate a prima facie case of Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Washington State.

WSHRC: Breach of Conciliated Agreement

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), how may the Washington State Human Rights Commission address the breach of a conciliated agreement? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Breach of Conciliated Agreement Under Washington Law

When discrimination complaints are resolved through Washington’s administrative process, the parties may enter into a conciliated agreement approved by the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC). These agreements are designed to eliminate unlawful practices under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60*. But what happens if one party fails to honor the terms of that agreement?

WAC 162-08-109* addresses this issue by outlining the tools available to the Commission’s executive director when a conciliation agreement is breached; it states as follows:

WAC 162-08-109
Breach of conciliated agreement.

If an agreement and order for the elimination of an unfair practice made under RCW 49.60.240* is breached, the executive director may take action appropriate in the circumstances, including one or more of the following:

(1) Specific enforcement. Bringing an action in superior or district court for specific enforcement of the agreement, or for damages pursuant to the conciliation agreement;

(2) Setting aside. Recommending to the commissioners that the agreement and order be set aside, in whole or in part, and that the case be returned to the staff for renewed conference, conciliation and persuasion, or to be referred to commission counsel for hearing; or

(3) Report to prosecuting attorney. Reporting the violation to the appropriate prosecuting attorney for prosecution under RCW 49.60.310*.

WAC 162-08-109* (emphasis and paragraph formatting added).

Options Available to the Commission

Thus, if a party violates the agreement, the executive director may choose one or more of the following steps, depending on the circumstances:

1. Specific Enforcement in Court

The Commission may file an action in superior or district court to enforce the agreement. This could mean seeking a court order that compels compliance with the original terms, or pursuing damages that were provided for in the agreement.

2. Setting Aside the Agreement

The executive director may recommend that the Commissioners void the agreement, in whole or in part. If this occurs, the case can be reopened for further conciliation efforts, or it may be referred to the Commission’s legal counsel for a formal hearing.

3. Referral for Prosecution

In certain cases, the violation may be referred to the appropriate prosecuting attorney for enforcement under RCW 49.60.310*, which provides for criminal penalties in connection with violations of the WLAD.

Why This Rule Matters

For individuals, this rule ensures that entering into a conciliation agreement is not the end of the road—there is accountability if the other party fails to follow through. For attorneys, it highlights the importance of drafting and reviewing conciliation agreements carefully, since breach can lead to renewed litigation, enforcement actions, or even criminal referral.

In short, WAC 162-08-109* underscores that compliance with conciliation agreements is not optional. The Human Rights Commission has meaningful enforcement mechanisms to protect both the integrity of the process and the rights of the parties involved.

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

» Remedies for Breach of Conciliation Agreements*

» WSHRC: Objective of Conciliation

LEARN MORE

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

–gw

June 26, 2025June 26, 2025

Pre-Litigation Settlement Caps: EEOC vs. WSHRC

Does the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) enforce pre-litigation settlement caps? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Settling Employment Discrimination Claims: EEOC and WSHRC Settlement Caps

People who experience workplace discrimination often have the option to address their claims through federal or state agencies before filing a lawsuit.

NOTE: Individuals pursuing claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must first exhaust the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOCs) administrative prerequisites before filing suit in court — this is mandatory, not optional.

In Washington State, two main agencies that handle these matters are the EEOC and the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC), which enforces state-level protections. A crucial question for those considering settlement through these agencies is whether any financial limits apply to the amount they can recover. The sections below take a closer look at whether such settlement caps exist in either forum.

1. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Settlement Cap

The EEOC* plays a crucial role in handling discrimination claims under federal laws, including Title VII. It investigates claims of discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions, transgender status, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information

In terms of settlement, the EEOC does not impose a specific dollar cap for settlements that occur during its investigation or conciliation process. Instead, the agency facilitates settlement discussions between the claimant (charging party) and the employer (respondent). The settlement amount is generally determined through negotiation and mutual agreement between both parties, with the goal of resolving the dispute efficiently without proceeding to litigation.

However, there are guidelines that could influence the settlement amount:

Back Pay and Front Pay: Settlements may include financial compensation for lost wages (back pay) or future lost wages (front pay), depending on the circumstances of the case.

Compensatory Damages: Claimants may be eligible for compensatory damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, and other non-economic losses. These damages are capped depending on the size of the employer’s business, as prescribed by the Civil Rights Act. See Punitive Damages, below.

Punitive Damages: Title VII allows for the recovery of punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination with malice or reckless indifference. Such recoveries are–similar to compensatory damages–capped depending on the size of the employer’s business.

NOTE: Limits on Compensatory & Punitive Damages. There are limits on the amount of compensatory and punitive damages a person can recover. These limits vary depending on the size of the employer:

• For employers with 15-100 employees, the limit is $50,000.

• For employers with 101-200 employees, the limit is $100,000.

• For employers with 201-500 employees, the limit is $200,000.

• For employers with more than 500 employees, the limit is $300,000.

Attorney’s Fees, Expert Witness Fees, and Court Costs: A victim of discrimination also may be able to recover attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and court costs.

While the EEOC does not impose a strict cap, settlement amounts in cases that the EEOC resolves are often guided by the circumstances of the claim and the financial situation of the employer.

2. Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) Settlement Cap

In Washington State, the WSHRC handles, inter alia, claims of employment discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) — it is responsible for enforcing the WLAD. The WSHRC works similarly to the EEOC* but addresses claims under state law.

One notable difference, however, is that the WSHRC has specific caps for pain and suffering awards by administrative law judges (ALJ) under the WLAD. The maximum amount of damages that an appointed ALJ can award to an employment-discrimination claimant for humiliation and mental suffering is $20,000. See RCW 49.60.250(5)*. Moreover, based on my previous communications the WSHRC, even if the parties settle the claim before appointment of an ALJ, the maximum settlement amount a claimant can recover for pain and suffering in a WSHRC-administered settlement remains $20,000. This cap is part of the administrative process under the WLAD and applies specifically to settlements facilitated by the WSHRC before arbitration or filing a lawsuit.

That said, claimants who seek settlements beyond this $20,000 cap still have options. They can pursue private settlements outside of the WSHRC administrative process. In these cases, the parties involved may agree to a settlement that exceeds the WSHRC cap. However–based on my experience–the WSHRC will likely require the parties to report any such settlement to the WSHRC if the claims are still under active investigation by the agency. This reporting requirement ensures that the WSHRC is aware of the resolution, even if it falls outside the agency’s prescribed settlement limits.

Conclusion

Both the U.S. EEOC and the WSHRC provide opportunities for claimants to resolve employment discrimination disputes without proceeding to litigation, but the processes differ in key respects. While the EEOC does not impose a specific settlement dollar cap, settlements are guided by the nature of the claim and the employer’s financial capacity. In contrast, the WSHRC does have a cap for pain and suffering settlements, limiting them to $20,000 under the Washington Law Against Discrimination; claimants seeking to exceed this amount may still pursue private settlements, provided they comply with reporting requirements if the WSHRC is involved in the investigation.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

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

» EEOC: The Notice of Right to Sue

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

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

» WSHRC: Organization and Operations

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

June 15, 2025August 7, 2025

WSHRC: Investigation

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what is the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”) regulation concerning investigation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Understanding WAC 162-08-094: A Simple Explanation of the Investigation Process for Discrimination Complaints in Washington State

If you’ve ever filed or responded to a WSHRC discrimination complaint, it’s helpful to understand how that agency handles investigations. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 162-08-094 outlines key steps in this process. The relevant provision states as follows:

WAC 162-08-094
Investigation.

(1) Copy of complaint to respondent. Except as may be provided for complaints alleging an unfair practice in a real estate transaction, within a reasonably prompt time after a complaint is filed the staff shall furnish a copy of the complaint to the respondent and shall afford the respondent an opportunity to reply in writing. No error or omission in carrying out this step shall affect the validity of the complaint or prevent further processing of it.

(2) Preliminary evaluation of complaint. Whenever the allegations of the complaint, if true, show no basis for commission action, then the staff without further investigation may enter a finding of no reasonable cause or write a recommendation for a finding of no jurisdiction, or other appropriate disposition.

(3) Scope of investigation. The investigation is limited to ascertaining the facts concerning the unfair practice(s) alleged in the complaint. RCW 49.60.240.

WAC 162-08-094*. Here’s a plain-language overview to help you understand what this rule means.

Step 1: Notifying the Respondent

Once a discrimination complaint is filed—except in cases involving real estate—the person or organization being accused (called the respondent) will receive a copy of the complaint. The Commission will also give them a chance to respond in writing. Even if there’s a delay or error in this notification, it doesn’t invalidate the complaint or stop the investigation from moving forward.

Step 2: Early Review of the Complaint

Before launching a full investigation, the Commission takes a preliminary look at the complaint. If, even assuming the allegations are true, there’s no legal basis for the Commission to act, they may decide to:

• Dismiss the complaint (finding “no reasonable cause”),

• Recommend that the Commission doesn’t have jurisdiction (authority),

• Or suggest another appropriate outcome.

This step helps ensure that only valid complaints move forward.

Step 3: Focused Fact-Finding

If the complaint proceeds, the investigation will focus solely on the facts related to the specific unfair practice alleged. This means investigators won’t go on a broad search—they’ll stick to what’s directly relevant to the complaint, as required by state law (RCW 49.60.240*).

In Summary

This rule outlines how the Washington State Human Rights Commission manages the early stages of a discrimination complaint. It ensures that both parties are informed and treated fairly, starting with notification, followed by a careful review to determine if the complaint has legal grounds, and ending with a fact-based investigation focused on the specific issues raised. Understanding this process helps everyone involved know their rights and what steps may come next.

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

» WA State Human Rights Commission Complaints

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

» WSHRC: From Complaint to Conclusion

» WSHRC: Organization and Operations

» WSHRC: Procedure When None Is Specified

» WSHRC: Relationship of Commission to Complainant

» WSHRC: Withdrawal of Complaint

LEARN MORE

–gw

June 12, 2025

Why Do Some Employers Unlawfully Discriminate?

Why do some employers unlawfully discriminate against their employees? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Why Employers Might Unlawfully Discriminate Against Their Employees — And Why It Matters

In the modern workplace, anti-discrimination laws have made significant strides in protecting individuals from unfair treatment based on race, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, and other protected characteristics. Despite this progress, workplace discrimination remains a persistent issue. Understanding why employers might engage in discriminatory practices — even in violation of clear legal standards — is critical for legal professionals, HR personnel, and compliance officers alike.

1. Implicit Bias and Stereotyping

Discrimination in the workplace often stems not from overt prejudice, but from unconscious biases—automatic associations and assumptions that can shape decisions without the decision-maker even realizing it. For instance, a supervisor might instinctively view men as more suitable for leadership roles or assume that older employees struggle with new technology. Though these biases may never be expressed aloud, they can influence important employment outcomes such as hiring, promotions, and disciplinary actions, often disadvantaging individuals in legally protected groups.

Legal Considerations:

Courts are increasingly acknowledging the role of implicit bias in employment discrimination cases, especially where patterns of unequal treatment or adverse impact are evident. Under laws like the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), evidence of unconscious bias can support claims of unlawful discrimination—even in the absence of direct or intentional misconduct.

2. Cultural “Fit” and the Homogeneity Trap

Hiring for “cultural fit” is a popular concept in many organizations, especially startups and smaller companies. However, this term can become a euphemism for maintaining homogeneity. Employers may, intentionally or not, exclude candidates who don’t mirror the dominant demographics or communication styles of existing teams.

While the desire for team cohesion is understandable, when “fit” becomes a code word for race, age, gender similarity, or other protected class, the legal exposure increases. Courts and agencies like the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) and U.S. EEOC scrutinize these practices for violation of associated employment-discrimination laws.

3. Economic Rationalizations

Some employers make decisions based on economic stereotypes — for example, assuming women are more likely to take maternity leave, or older workers will demand higher salaries or retire soon. These assumptions can result in discrimination cloaked in cost-saving rhetoric.

This kind of reasoning may violate laws like the WLAD, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), Equal Pay Act*, or ADEA*. Cost alone is not a defense to discriminatory practices.

4. Discriminatory Customer or Client Preferences

Another subtle driver of discrimination is the perceived preference of customers, clients, or even coworkers. For instance, an employer might believe that customers prefer to be served by younger, able-bodied, or white employees — and act accordingly.

Both the WLAD and associated Federal law is clear: employers cannot base employment decisions on customer preferences if those preferences reflect discriminatory bias based on protected class. The WLAD, Title VII, and related statutes do not carve out exceptions for such customer prejudices, no matter how commercially persuasive they might seem.

5. Inadequate Training and Compliance Infrastructure

In some cases, discrimination arises from negligence rather than malice. Employers may lack proper training, or they may fail to implement strong compliance programs that prevent bias from creeping into decision-making. This lack of oversight can result in systematic discrimination that violates state laws — even when no single person intends harm.

The legal lesson is clear: intent is not always required for liability. Under state-based disparate impact theories, a neutral policy or practice that disproportionately harms a protected class can trigger legal consequences, regardless of motive.

6. Combating Discrimination Proactively

For employers, the risk of litigation, reputational damage, and financial penalties should be motivation enough to root out discriminatory practices. For attorneys and compliance professionals, understanding these underlying causes can guide better training, policy design, and internal investigations.

Proactive strategies include but are not limited to:

• Mandatory implicit bias training for hiring managers;
• Structured interviews and standardized evaluations;
• Diversity audits and statistical monitoring;
• Clear, well-enforced anti-discrimination policies.

Conclusion

Discrimination against protected classes is rarely as blatant as it once was — but it is no less real. Whether driven by unconscious bias, flawed business logic, or misplaced priorities, discriminatory practices persist in ways that can expose employers to serious legal risk. Legal professionals must remain vigilant, not only in litigating claims but also in helping organizations recognize and eliminate the subtle forces that sustain inequality.

And for those Washington State employers that fail to heed these warnings: You may find me as opposing counsel in a lawsuit against your organization.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

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

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

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

LEARN MORE

–gw

June 7, 2025October 8, 2025

Constructive Discharge Is an Adverse Employment Action (9th Circuit)

Is constructive discharge considered an adverse employment action in the 9th Circuit? 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

Constructive Discharge (or Termination)

In Washington State, resignation from employment is presumed to be voluntary. Molsness v. City of Walla Walla, 84 Wn. App. 393, 398, 928 P.2d 1108 (1996) (citing Sneed v. Barna, 80 Wn. App. 843, 912 P.2d 1035 (1996)). The legal theory of constructive discharge allows plaintiffs to rebut that presumption under both state (i.e., Washington Law Against Discrimination) and federal law (i.e., Title VII and Section 1981).

Constructive Discharge Is an Adverse Employment Action (9th Circuit)

The Ninth Circuit broadly defines an “adverse employment action” as “any action ‘reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity.’” Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840, 850 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2007)). “A constructive discharge–if proven–constitutes an adverse employment action.” Jordan v. Clark, 847 F.2d 1368, 1377 n.10 (9th Cir. 1988) (hyperlink added).

Accordingly, plaintiffs typically use constructive discharge to support viable legal theories of employment discrimination that require adverse employment actions to establish a prima facie case.

Read our related articles

» Effective Date for Constructive Discharge

» What Is Constructive Termination in WA State?

need help?

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

-gw

June 5, 2025

Employment Law 101: Settlement Agreements

In Washington State, what are settlement agreements within the context of employment-law litigation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Finality Through Compromise: The Role of Settlement Agreements in Employment Law

In employment disputes—often emotionally charged and legally complex—settlement agreements provide a structured and efficient path toward resolution. These agreements, rooted in the well-established principles of contract law, allow employers and employees to avoid the uncertainty and expense of protracted litigation. Courts in Washington, and across the country, consistently support settlements as essential tools for resolving workplace disputes with finality and fairness.

Settlement Agreements: Contracts with Legal Weight

Settlement agreements in the employment context function as legally enforceable contracts and are governed by traditional contract principles—requiring offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent. See Elgiadi v. Wash. State Univ. Spokane, 519 P.3d 939, 941 (Wash. App. 2022) (citing Stottlemyre v. Reed, 35 Wn. App. 169, 171, 665 P.2d 1383 (1983)).

Whether resolving a wrongful termination claim, a wage dispute, or allegations of workplace discrimination, the settlement process formalizes the parties’ agreement to dismiss legal claims in exchange for agreed-upon terms. Once executed, these contracts carry binding legal effect, providing closure and clarity for both employer and employee.

Mutual Concessions: The Nature of Employment Settlements

Employment settlements, like all compromises, involve mutual concessions with parties typically accepting less than what they believe they are entitled to in order to avoid the risks and burdens of litigation. See id. (citing Harding v. Will, 81 Wn.2d 132, 138, 500 P.2d 91 (1972); Strozier v. General Motors Corp., 635 F.2d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 1981); 15B AM. JUR. 2D COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS § 1 (2021)).

This is particularly true in employment disputes, where the cost of litigation, the unpredictability of jury verdicts, and the reputational stakes for both parties can be substantial. Employees may choose to settle for a guaranteed financial payment rather than risk a less favorable outcome at trial. Employers, in turn, often settle to avoid continued liability, disruption to business operations, and additional legal fees. See id. at 942.

A Strong Public Policy Favoring Settlement

Washington courts have repeatedly emphasized the strong public policy favoring settlements “and the finality they afford.” Id. at 941 (citing Haller v. Wallis, 89 Wash.2d 539, 544, 573 P.2d 1302 (1978)). Accordingly, “Washington jurisprudence recognizes a strong public policy encouraging settlements.” Id. at 941-42 (citing Am. Safety Cas. Ins. Co. v. City of Olympia, 162 Wash.2d 762, 772, 174 P.3d 54 (2007); City of Seattle v. Blume, 134 Wash.2d 243, 258, 947 P.2d 223 (1997); Seafirst Ctr. Ltd. P’ship v. Erickson, 127 Wash.2d 355, 366, 898 P.2d 299 (1995)).

In the employment context, this policy promotes quicker resolution of disputes, helping both parties move forward. It also supports a more cooperative legal environment—one that encourages dialogue and resolution rather than extended confrontation. Ultimately, settlements benefit the legal system by conserving judicial resources and providing certainty to the parties involved.

Finality: The Cornerstone of Settlement

A key aspect of any employment settlement agreement is finality. As emphasized in Haller v. Wallis, 89 Wash.2d at 544, 573 P.2d 1302, the legal system disfavors attempts to reopen resolved disputes. Once a settlement is reached and claims are released, the employer should be protected from further liability regarding the same issues.

This principle is especially important for employers, who often settle in order to eliminate the ongoing costs and uncertainties of litigation. Allowing a plaintiff to revisit settled claims would defeat the entire purpose of compromise, exposing employers to renewed legal exposure after paying to resolve the matter.

To ensure finality, settlement agreements in employment cases typically include comprehensive release of claims clauses. These provisions explicitly bar the employee from bringing future claims arising out of the same employment relationship or incident—giving employers the legal certainty they need to close the book on the dispute.

Conclusion

In employment law, where legal claims can carry high financial and reputational stakes, settlement agreements offer a vital path to resolution. Governed by contract principles and bolstered by strong public policy, these agreements serve both employer and employee by delivering certainty, efficiency, and finality. For employers and counsel alike, understanding the enforceability and purpose of settlement agreements is essential in navigating the complex world of workplace disputes.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

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

» Illegal Contracts in Washington State

» Interpreting Releases in Washington State*

» The Adhesion Contract*

» Unenforceable Employment-Contract Provisions and Discrimination Claims*

» Washington Contract Law and Sham Consideration*

» WA State Contracts & the Context Rule*

» Washington Contract Law and Sham Consideration*

LEARN MORE

–gw

April 8, 2025April 17, 2025

What is constructive termination in WA State?

Advertisement

What is constructive termination in WA State?

answer:

In WA State, a constructive termination (or discharge) arises “where an employer deliberately makes an employee‘s working conditions intolerable, thereby forcing the employee to resign.” Sneed v. Barna, 80 Wash. App. 843, 849-50, 912 P.2d 1035, review denied, 129 Wash.2d 1023, 919 P.2d 600 (1996) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

Depending on the circumstances of each case, a constructive discharge might support a viable legal theory of employment discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) and/or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and associated federal laws).

THE TERM “DELIBERATELY”

The term “deliberately” entails a deliberate act or a pattern of conduct “of the employer creating the intolerable condition, without regard to the employer’s mental state as to the resulting consequence.” Sneed, 80 Wash.App. at 849-50; Barnett v. Sequim Valley Ranch, LLC, 174 Wn.App. 475, 485, 302 P.3d 500 (Div. 2 2013) (internal citation omitted).

INTOLERABLE WORKING CONDITIONS

Typically, the question of “whether working conditions have risen to an ‘intolerable’ level is a factual question for the jury.” Sneed, 80 Wash.App. at 849 (internal citations omitted). Often, the courts will “look for evidence of either ‘aggravating circumstances’ or a ‘continuous pattern of discriminatory treatment’ to support a constructive discharge claim.” Id. at 850 (internal citations omitted).

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED (OBJECTIVE STANDARD)

The question to be answered is “whether working conditions would have been so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee’s shoes would have felt compelled to resign.” Id. at 849 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “This is an objective standard and an employee’s subjective belief that he had no choice but to resign is irrelevant.” Barnett, 174 Wn.App. at 485 (citing Travis v. Tacoma Pub. Sch. Dist., 120 Wash.App. 542, 551, 85 P.3d 959 (2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

take our constructive discharge test

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Effective Date for Constructive Discharge (WA State)

» Is Washington State an at-will employment state?

» What is the Statute of Limitations for Wrongful Termination in WA?

» WLAD & The Constructive Discharge Provision*

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

NEED HELP?

April 5, 2025April 24, 2025

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

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

FAQ: What is Section 1981?

answer:

THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT

Equal Rights in Contracts and Legal Matters

Scope of “Making and Enforcing Contracts”

Protection Against Discrimination

Conclusion

NEED HELP?

What are the elements of Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in WA State?

answer:

Read More About This Topic

NEED HELP?

Breach of Conciliated Agreement Under Washington Law

Options Available to the Commission

1. Specific Enforcement in Court

2. Setting Aside the Agreement

3. Referral for Prosecution

Why This Rule Matters

RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

Settling Employment Discrimination Claims: EEOC and WSHRC Settlement Caps

1. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Settlement Cap

2. Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) Settlement Cap

Conclusion

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

Understanding WAC 162-08-094: A Simple Explanation of the Investigation Process for Discrimination Complaints in Washington State

Step 1: Notifying the Respondent

Step 2: Early Review of the Complaint

Step 3: Focused Fact-Finding

In Summary

RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

Why Employers Might Unlawfully Discriminate Against Their Employees — And Why It Matters

1. Implicit Bias and Stereotyping

Legal Considerations:

2. Cultural “Fit” and the Homogeneity Trap

3. Economic Rationalizations

4. Discriminatory Customer or Client Preferences

5. Inadequate Training and Compliance Infrastructure

6. Combating Discrimination Proactively

Conclusion

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

Constructive Discharge (or Termination)

Constructive Discharge Is an Adverse Employment Action (9th Circuit)

Read our related articles

need help?

Finality Through Compromise: The Role of Settlement Agreements in Employment Law

Settlement Agreements: Contracts with Legal Weight

Mutual Concessions: The Nature of Employment Settlements

A Strong Public Policy Favoring Settlement

Finality: The Cornerstone of Settlement

Conclusion

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

What is constructive termination in WA State?

answer:

THE TERM “DELIBERATELY”

INTOLERABLE WORKING CONDITIONS

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED (OBJECTIVE STANDARD)

take our constructive discharge test

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

NEED HELP?

WASHINGTON STATE: THE LIE-DETECTOR LAW

CIVIL LIABILITY: REMEDIES

CRIMINAL CULPABILITY

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE