Uncategorized Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

April 9, 2026April 25, 2026

Personality Tests and Employment Discrimination

To what extent do personality tests used in job screenings create a risk of employment discrimination under Washington State law? 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

When Personality Tests Become Discrimination: A Growing Risk in Washington Hiring

Washington employers increasingly rely on personality tests, behavioral assessments, and algorithm‑driven screening tools to sort job applicants. These tools promise efficiency and objectivity — but they also create real risks under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), especially in Pierce and King Counties where tech‑driven hiring is common.

Why These Tests Raise Red Flags

Many personality assessments measure traits that correlate with protected conditions. For example:

• “Stress tolerance” scores may penalize applicants with anxiety disorders.

• “Adaptability” metrics can disadvantage neurodivergent candidates.

• “Energy level” ratings may screen out individuals with chronic health conditions.

Under WLAD, discrimination doesn’t require intent. If a hiring tool disproportionately excludes people with disabilities—or any protected class—the employer may be liable even if the tool was purchased from a third‑party vendor.

Washington’s Broader Legal Standard

Unlike federal law, WLAD is interpreted liberally* in favor of employees. Employers should be wary of outsourcing discrimination to software, consultants, or automated systems. If the tool creates a disparate impact, the employer should own the consequences.

This means a well‑meaning HR department in Tacoma or Seattle might inadvertently violate WLAD simply by relying on a vendor’s “validated” assessment that screens out protected groups.

What Employers Should Be Doing (opinion)

To stay compliant, I believe Washington employers should:

• Audit any personality or behavioral test for disparate impact.

• Request validation studies specific to the job and region — not generic national data.

• Offer accommodations or alternative assessments when disability may affect results.

• Avoid blanket reliance on automated scoring or algorithmic rankings.

These steps are beyond best practices and are increasingly necessary as regulators and courts scrutinize algorithmic hiring.

What Employees Should Know

If you were rejected after taking a personality test or online assessment, and you believe the results were influenced by a disability or other protected characteristic, you may have rights under WLAD. Washington law allows applicants to challenge discriminatory screening tools even before they are hired.

Conclusion

As hiring becomes more automated, Washington’s anti‑discrimination laws remain firmly human‑centered. Employers in WA State should treat personality tests and algorithmic tools with caution — and applicants should know that a computer‑generated rejection isn’t always the final word.

Read Our Related Articles

» Employment Discrimination Based Upon Cannabis Use (WA State)

» Job Applicants and Criminal Records

» Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

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

March 19, 2026April 25, 2026

The Perils of Plaintiff Dishonesty or Inaccuracy During Litigation

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

Advertisement

Perils of Plaintiff Dishonesty or Inaccuracy During Employment-Discrimination Litigation

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

1. Credibility Drives Outcomes

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

2. False Statements Can Trigger Legal Penalties

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

3. Dishonesty Weakens the Broader System

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

4. Attorney-Client Relationships Depend on Transparency

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

5. The Facts Alone Are Often Enough

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

6. Discovery Will Expose Inconsistencies

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

Conclusion

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

LEARN MORE

–gw

February 15, 2026March 26, 2026

Disability-Based Hostile Work Environment

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, how does one establish a disability-based hostile work environment case via circumstantial evidence? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE: DISABILITY-BASED HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT VIA CIRCUMSTANIAL EVIDENCE

To establish a disability-based hostile work environment case via circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by proving:

(1) that the plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the antidiscrimination statute[, WLAD],

(2) that the harassment was unwelcome,

(3) that it was because of the disability,

(4) that it affected the terms and conditions of employment, and

(5) that it was imputable to the employer.

Robel v. Roundup Corporation, 148 Wn.2d 35 (Wash 2002) at 45.

SECOND ELEMENT (UNWELCOME)

To establish that the harassment was unwelcome, “the plaintiff must show that he or she ‘did not solicit or incite it’ and viewed it as ‘undesirable or offensive.'” Id. (citing Glasgow v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 406, 693, P.2d 708 (Wash. 1985)) (hyperlink added).

THIRD ELEMENT (BECAUSE OF DISABILITY)

To establish that the harassment was “because of disability,” requires “[t]hat the disability of the plaintiff-employee be the motivating factor for the unlawful discrimination.” Id. at 46 (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406, 693 P.2d 708)) (alteration in original). This element requires a nexus between the specific harassing conduct and the particular injury or disability. Id.

FOURTH ELEMENT (TERMS & CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT)

To establish that the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, “the harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id. at (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406, 693 P.2d 708)).

“[A] satisfactory finding on this element should indicate “that the conduct or language complained of was so offensive or pervasive that it could reasonably be expected to alter the conditions of plaintiff’s employment.'” Id. (citing 6A WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CIVIL 330.23, at 240) (alteration in original).

FIFTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO EMPLOYER)

To impute harassment to an employer, “the jury must find either that[:]

(1) an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participate[d] in the harassment or that

(2) the employer … authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonably prompt adequate corrective action.”

Id. at 47 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (second alteration in original) (paragraph formatting added).

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

Definition of Prima Facie Case**

Disability-Based Hostile Work Environment

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)

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

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.

January 8, 2026January 8, 2026

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

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

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

Advertisement

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

In today’s workplaces, discussions about race and discrimination remain highly sensitive—and sometimes even controversial. Unfortunately, one phrase often used to undermine these conversations is the idiom “playing the race card.” Though it may seem like a casual expression, this phrase carries derogatory connotations and can have a chilling effect on individuals experiencing racial discrimination.

For employees in Washington State facing unfair treatment based on race, it’s essential to understand that seeking legal help is not only your right—it can be a necessary step in protecting yourself and improving workplace equity for everyone.

The Problem with “Playing the Race Card”

At its core, the idiom “playing the race card” implies that someone is opportunistically or manipulatively invoking their race to gain an advantage or excuse poor behavior. This notion casts doubt on the legitimacy of racial discrimination claims and frames the accuser as disingenuous.

This phrase is problematic for several reasons:

1. It Delegitimizes Genuine Concerns: Using this idiom suggests that raising concerns about racism is inherently suspect or dishonest. This mindset undermines the very real, and often well-documented, existence of racial bias in employment decisions such as hiring, promotions, compensation, and termination.

2. It Discourages Reporting: When people fear being accused of “playing the race card,” they may hesitate to come forward with valid claims. This reluctance allows discriminatory practices to persist unchecked.

3. It Perpetuates Systemic Inequality: Framing race-based complaints as exaggerated or attention-seeking minimizes the systemic nature of racism and prevents meaningful dialogue or change.

Know Your Rights in Washington State

Washington State has some of the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the country. Under both state and federal law, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee or job applicant based on certain protected classes including, but not limited to, race.

If you believe that your employer has treated you unfairly because of your race, you have the right to file a complaint and pursue legal recourse. This may include:

» Unequal pay or benefits

» Disparate impact

» Disparate treatment

» Harassment or hostile work environment

» Wrongful termination or demotion

» Retaliation for reporting discrimination

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

Why Speaking to an Employment Attorney Matters

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

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

Moving Beyond the Stigma

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

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

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

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

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

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

LEARN MORE

–gw

December 4, 2025December 4, 2025

Employment Law 101: Statute of Limitations

Under Washington State laws, what is the meaning of “statute of limitations” within the context of civil litigation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Introduction: Statute of Limitations

Within the context of Washington State civil litigation, the concept of the statute of limitations serves as an essential thread that weaves together justice, fairness, and practicality. Rooted in the belief that legal actions should be pursued within a reasonable timeframe, the statute of limitations imposes a temporal boundary on the initiation of lawsuits. This legal doctrine aims to strike a delicate balance between the need for timely resolution and the preservation of fundamental fairness. In this article, I will define the term, address its key principles, and discuss exceptions and tolling.

Defining Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations is a legal principle that dictates the maximum time allowed for a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit or legal action against a defendant. Its primary purpose is to ensure that legal disputes are resolved promptly, avoiding the complications that arise from the passage of time, such as fading memories, lost evidence, and changes in circumstances.

Statutes of limitations can vary depending on the legal theory; to learn about the statute of limitations for employment discrimination claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), we invite you to read our article entitled: WLAD Statute of Limitations.

Key Principles

1. Preserving Evidence and Witness Testimony:

The statute of limitations acts as a safeguard against the deterioration of evidence and witness testimony over time. It recognizes the inherent challenges of litigating a case where memories may fade, documents may be lost, and witnesses may become unavailable.

2. Promoting Judicial Efficiency:

Efficiency is a cornerstone of the American legal system, and the statute of limitations plays a vital role in achieving this goal. By encouraging prompt legal action, it helps prevent the clogging of court dockets with stale claims, allowing the legal system to focus on resolving current and pressing issues.

3. Balancing Fairness and Finality:

The statute of limitations embodies the principle of fairness by providing a degree of legal certainty for potential defendants. Once the prescribed time limit has passed, individuals and entities can reasonably expect to be free from the threat of litigation related to a particular incident, promoting finality in legal matters.

Exceptions and Tolling

While the statute of limitations is generally rigid, exceptions and tolling provisions exist. These may include circumstances such as the discovery of fraud or the minority of the plaintiff at the time of the incident, which can extend the time frame within which legal action can be initiated. To learn more about tolling the statute of limitations for employment discrimination claims under the WLAD, we invite you to read our article entitled: WLAD Statute of Limitations: Equitable Tolling.

Conclusion

The statute of limitations serves as a guardian of justice, ensuring that legal disputes are resolved in a timely manner while balancing the interests of both plaintiffs and defendants. Understanding the nuances of these temporal boundaries is vital for anyone handling lawsuits or legal actions, highlighting the intricate interplay between fairness, efficiency, and the pursuit of justice within the bounds of time.

Read Our Related Articles

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

» Employment Law 101: Alternative Dispute Resolution

» Employment Law 101: Definition of Pleading

» Employment Law 101: Depositions

» Employment Law 101: Discovery (WA State)

» Employment Law 101: Legal Theory

» Employment Law 101: Mediation

» Employment Law 101: Motions

» Employment Law 101: Remedies

» Employment Law 101: Summary Judgment (WA State)

» Employment Law 101: The Complaint

» Employment Law 101: The Defendant

» Employment Law 101: The Plaintiff

» Employment Law 101: The Summons

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

September 25, 2025January 8, 2026

WSHRC: Nature of Orders and Enforcement

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what are the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”) regulations concerning the nature of orders and enforcement? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WAC 162-08-305: Understanding the Public Nature of Commission Orders

WAC 162-08-305* defines how orders issued in Washington State Human Rights Commission proceedings function and who controls their enforcement. The rule emphasizes that these orders are tools of public law enforcement rather than private remedies owned by individual complainants.

Orders Serve a Public Enforcement Role

Under this regulation, orders secured by Commission counsel are characterized as public reparation orders. They are not judgments resolving private disputes between respondents and affected individuals. Even when an order directs a respondent to reinstate or compensate a person harmed by an unfair practice, the beneficiary does not hold a vested property right in that relief until it is actually delivered. This reflects the Commission’s statutory role in advancing compliance with the Law Against Discrimination on behalf of the public at large.

Enforcement Is Reserved to the Commission

The rule also centralizes enforcement authority. With limited statutory and regulatory exceptions (see RCW 49.60.260* and WAC 162-08-288*, respectively), only the Commission—acting through its legal counsel—may enforce an administrative law judge’s order. See RCW 49.60.260*. Individual complainants or beneficiaries do not have independent standing to enforce these orders, reinforcing the distinction between Commission proceedings and private civil actions.

Authority to Modify or Settle Orders

Finally, WAC 162-08-305* authorizes the Commission to compromise an order in good faith, even without the agreement of the individuals who would benefit from it. Except in certain real estate-related cases, this discretion allows the Commission to manage enforcement in a way that accounts for practical realities, legal risk, and broader policy objectives.

Implications

WAC 162-08-305* underscores that remedies issued through the Human Rights Commission are designed to vindicate public interests. While individuals may benefit from these orders, ultimate control over enforcement and resolution remains with the Commission itself.

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: Relationship of Commission to Complainant

» WSHRC: Withdrawal of Complaint

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

September 11, 2025September 11, 2025

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

July 14, 2025July 16, 2026

Cat’s Paw Theory of Liability (WA State)

Cat's Paw Theory of Liability (WA State)

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

Advertisement

CAT’S PAW THEORY OF LIABILITY — SUBORDINATE BIAS LIABILITY

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

THE GENERAL RULE

The general rule is as follows:

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

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

PROXIMATE CAUSE

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

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS & CAUSATION

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

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

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

ORIGINS OF CAT’S PAW THEORY OF LIABILITY

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

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

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

THE CAT & THE MONKEY

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

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress & Supervisors*

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

» Suing Supervisors for Discrimination in Washington*

LEARN MORE

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

–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