Uncategorized Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

March 27, 2025April 3, 2025

Origin of the Disparate Impact Claim

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, what is the origin of the disparate impact claim? 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

ORIGIN OF THE DISPARATE IMPACT CLAIM: GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER CO.

In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971), “the [United States] Supreme Court held that Title VII prohibits employment practices that are discriminatory in effect as well as those based on discriminatory intent.” Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 498, 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014) (citing Griggs, 401 U.S. at 429-30) (emphasis in original) (hyperlink added).

“The unanimous Griggs Court reasoned that Title VII‘s purposes could not be achieved unless the statute was construed to bar practices … neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent [that] operate to ‘freeze’ the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.” Kumar, 180 Wn.2d at 498 (citing Griggs, 401 U.S. at 430) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (hyperlink added).

“The [U.S.] Supreme Court therefore held that Title VII barred even a facially neutral job requirement if that requirement disproportionately burdened a protected class, unless the requirement bore a legitimate relation to ‘job performance,’ that is, unless it constituted a ‘business necessity.'” Id. at 498-99 (citing Griggs, 401 U.S. at 431) (hyperlink added). “The Griggs decision created the cause of action now known as a ‘disparate impact’ claim.'” Kumar, 180 Wn.2d at 499 (citing Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 230, 125 S.Ct. 1536, 161 L.Ed.2d 410 (2005)) (emphasis added).

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

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

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Impact

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

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.

March 15, 2025April 17, 2025

Presumption of Acquiescence

Under Washington State canons of statutory construction, what is the canon regarding presumption of acquiescence? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

PRESUMPTION OF ACQUIESCENCE

Under the Presumption-of-Acquiescence canon, “Legislative silence regarding the construed portion of the statute in a subsequent amendment creates a presumption of acquiescence in that construction.” Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Company, 129 Wn.2d 572, 581 (Wash. 1996) (Talmadge, J., concurring) (concluding that the Washington State Legislature “clearly understood it was adopting exemplary damages as part of Washington’s antidiscrimination law when it amended RCW 49.60.030(2) in 1993 and 1995.” (citing Baker v. Leonard, 120 Wash.2d 538, 545, 843 P.2d 1050 (1993). State v. Ritchie, 126 Wash.2d 388, 393, 894 P.2d 1308 (1995). See also State v. Young, 125 Wash.2d 688, 696, 888 P.2d 142 (1995); In re King County Foreclosure of Liens, 117 Wash.2d 77, 86, 811 P.2d 945 (1991) (“the Legislature is presumed to know existing case law in areas in which it is legislating”))). Id.

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

March 6, 2025March 20, 2025

The Tort of Battery

Under Washington State laws, what is the tort of battery? 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

THE TORT OF BATTERY (WA STATE)

A tort is “[a] civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which a remedy may be obtained, usu. in the form of damages; a breach of a duty that the law imposes on persons who stand in a particular relation to one another.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1526 (8th ed. 2004). The tort of “‘battery’ is an intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff’s person.” Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 504, 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014).

THE ELEMENTS

“A defendant is liable for battery if[:]

(a) he [or she] acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the [plaintiff or a third party], or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and

(b) a harmful or offensive contact with the [plaintiff] directly or indirectly results.

Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13 (1965)) (second-fourth alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

Thus, “[a] person … commits a battery where he or she performs [a]n act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another’s person and that act is intentional, is not consented to, and is otherwise unprivileged.” Id. at 504 (second alteration in original) (internal citations an quotation marks omitted).

Battery cases often involve one or more of the following Issues: (1) offensive bodily contact, (2) intent, (3) force, and (4) fraud/duress.

(1) OFFENSIVE BODILY CONTACT

In Washington, “[a] bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.” Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 19). “Thus, an offensive contact does not have to result in physical injury to constitute a battery.” Id. (referencing Seigel v. Long, 169 Ala. 79, 53 So. 753 (1910) (“facts established claim for battery where defendant pushed plaintiff’s hat back in order to see his face”); Crawford v. Bergen, 91 Iowa 675, 60 N.W. 205 (1894) (“facts established claim for battery where defendant placed his hand on the plaintiff’s shoulder and asked him an insulting question”)).

Nature of the Contact: “[T]he ‘contact’ element of a battery is simply a harmful or an offensive contact with the plaintiff; thus, a battery can occur where, for example, the plaintiff comes in harmful contact with the ground but never touches the defendant.” Id. at 504 (internal citation omitted).

(2) INTENT

“[T]he ‘intent’ element of battery is satisfied where a defendant knows to a ‘substantial certainty’ that his actions will result in the harmful or offensive touching.” Id. at 504-05 (internal citation omitted).

(3) FORCE

“‘[F]orce’ is not an element of battery.” Id. at 504 (internal citation omitted).

(4) FRAUD/DURESS

“A person therefore commits a battery where he or she performs [a]n act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another’s person and that act is intentional, is not consented to, and is otherwise unprivileged.” Id. at 504 (alteration in original) (internal citations an quotation marks omitted). “These elements are met where the plaintiff’s consent to the contact is procured by fraud or duress.” Id. at 505 (internal citations omitted).

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

February 26, 2025February 26, 2025

The Litigation Privilege (WA State)

In Washington State, what is the litigation privilege? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE (WA STATE)

In Washington State, “[t]he ‘litigation privilege’ is a judicially created privilege that protects participants—including attorneys, parties, and witnesses—in a judicial proceeding against civil liability for statements they make in the course of that proceeding.” Young v. Rayan, 27 Wn.App. 2d 500, 533 P.3d 123 (Wash. App. 2023), review denied, 2 Wash.3d 1008 (Wash. 2023) (internal citations omitted).

witness immunity

When applied to witnesses, this privilege is often referred to as “witness immunity.” See id. Under this principle, witnesses in judicial proceedings are generally granted absolute immunity from legal action based on their testimony, provided their statements are related to the litigation at hand. See id. “Statements are absolutely privileged if they are pertinent or material to the redress or relief sought, whether or not the statements are legally sufficient to obtain that relief.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRIVILEGE

However, statements that are unrelated to the litigation do not receive this protection; not every incidental remark made in court will escape liability. See id. But the threshold for determining relevance is not overly stringent: “As the Restatement (Second) of Torts indicates, a statement ‘need not be strictly relevant to any issue’ so long as it bears ‘some reference to the subject matter of the … litigation.'” Id. (citing RESTATEMENT § 586, comment c).

THE GENERAL RULE

Thus, the Litigation Privilege “prohibits liability stemming from statements

(1) made in the course of a judicial proceeding

(2) that are pertinent to the litigation.

Id. “Pertinency is a question of law reviewed de novo.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

THE POLICY

“The purpose of the litigation privilege doctrine is to encourage frank, open, untimorous argument and testimony and to discourage retaliatory, derivative lawsuits.” Id.

ATTORNEYS

“As applied to attorneys, it furthers ‘a public policy of securing to [counsel] as officers of the court the utmost freedom in their efforts to secure justice for their clients.’” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (alteration in original).

WITNESS TESTIMONY

“As applied to witness testimony, it preserves ‘the integrity of the judicial process by encouraging full and frank testimony.'” Id. (internal citations omitted). “The rule addresses the concern that a witness may either be reluctant to come forward to testify in the first place or shade their testimony ‘to magnify uncertainties, and thus to deprive the finder of fact of candid, objective, and undistorted evidence.'” Id. (internal citation omitted).

LEARN MORE

January 23, 2025January 23, 2025

The Pari Materia Rule

Under Washington State canons of statutory construction, what is the Pari Materia Rule? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION

A canon of construction is “[a] rule used in construing legal instruments, esp. contracts and statutes.” Black’s Law Dictionary 219 (8th ed. 2004) (emphasis added).

NOTE: “A frequent criticism of the canons [of construction], made forcefully by Professor Llewellyn many years ago, is that for every canon one might bring to bear on a point there is an equal and opposite canon. This is an exaggeration; but what is true is that there is a canon to support every possible result.” Id. (citing Richard A. Posner, The Federal Courts: Crisis and Reform 276 (1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

THE PARI MATERIA RULE: INTERPRETING CONFLICTING STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Legal statutes can sometimes be difficult to interpret, particularly when different sections of a law appear to contradict one another. In such cases, courts rely on certain principles of interpretation to clarify the law’s intent. One such principle is known as pari materia, a rule of construction used when two provisions within the same statute or related statutes seem to conflict. The rule states as follows:

Reading the statutes in parimateria the rule of construction applies, that as between two conflicting parts of a statute, that part latest in order of position will prevail, where the first part is not more clear and explicit than the last part.

Schneider v. Forcier, 67 Wn.2d 161, 164, 406 P.2d 935 (Wash. 1965) (internal citation omitted).

Thus, the pari materia rule states that, when conflicting provisions exist, the more recent one—meaning the provision that comes last in the text—should generally take precedence. However, there’s an important exception to this. If the earlier provision is more precise or clearer in its wording, then it may still outweigh the later provision. This ensures that the most unambiguous and straightforward part of the law is followed, even if it isn’t the most recent.

THE POLICY BEHIND THE RULE

The rationale behind this rule is based on the idea that legal texts evolve over time through amendments, updates, or revisions. As laws change, they may introduce new provisions that supersede older ones. However, if the latest change is unclear or in conflict with the earlier law, courts prioritize clarity and explicit meaning to maintain consistency and avoid confusion in the legal system.

In practice, this rule helps resolve contradictions in a way that reflects the likely intent of lawmakers, allowing the law to adapt to new circumstances while maintaining a logical structure. By applying pari materia, judges can ensure that the most recent and relevant expression of the law is given proper weight, unless it conflicts with the clear intent of previous provisions.

CONCLUSION

The pari materia rule is an essential tool for interpreting statutes that contain conflicting sections. By giving preference to the most recent provisions, while allowing earlier, clearer provisions to take precedence when necessary, it helps ensure that the law remains consistent, coherent, and true to its original intent. This rule strikes a balance between respecting legislative changes and honoring the clarity of earlier laws.

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 16, 2025January 16, 2025

Definition of Hearsay (WA State)

Under Washington State laws, what is the definition of hearsay? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Definition of Hearsay (WA State)

In the legal profession, there are specific guidelines that dictate how evidence can be used and presented in court. One such guideline involves hearsay, a rule that is central to maintaining fairness and ensuring that the evidence admitted is credible. Washington State law generally follows the principle of excluding hearsay, though there are notable exceptions (NOTE: this article will not address those exceptions). A clear understanding of what hearsay entails, particularly in the context of Washington law, is crucial for litigators.

Rule 801: What Constitutes Hearsay?

In Washington State, Evidence Rule (ER) 801 defines hearsay as follows:

…

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

ER 801(c)*. In simpler terms, this means that if someone is recounting what they heard or read from another person, that statement is generally regarded as hearsay. (NOTE: Within the ER 801 definition, the term “statement” means “(1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.” Id.* And the term “declarant” means “a person who makes a statement.” Id.*)

example

Thus, Hearsay is essentially an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what is being asserted. In other words, it involves a statement made outside the courtroom, brought into court to establish that the information in the statement is accurate. As a general rule, hearsay is typically not allowed in court due to its inherent unreliability. Since these statements are not made under oath or subjected to cross-examination, they do not undergo the same level of scrutiny as in-court testimony, which can raise questions about their accuracy.

For instance, if a witness testifies, “I overheard my co-worker John say he saw Manager Smith covertly sabotage the plaintiff’s work,” this would be considered hearsay. The purpose of the statement is to prove that manager Smith was indeed the individual that set up the plaintiff for failure. However, since co-worker John is not available to testify in person and be questioned, the statement is generally excluded as unreliable evidence under the hearsay rule.

How Washington State Handles Hearsay

Washington State follows the foundational principles of hearsay outlined in the state’s own Rules of Evidence (specifically Rule 801). These rules provide a structure for determining when a statement qualifies as hearsay and when exceptions to the rule might apply (again, this article does not address those exceptions).

Conclusion

In conclusion, hearsay is an important concept in Washington State law that helps maintain the reliability and fairness of legal proceedings. Defined under ER 801, hearsay refers to an out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of what is being claimed. Generally, hearsay is not allowed in court because it lacks the safeguards of being made under oath or subject to cross-examination; however, there are exceptions beyond the scope of this article. A clear understanding of this rule is essential for legal professionals to ensure only credible evidence is presented in court.

We invite you to read more of our related blog articles:

» Proving Discrimination: The Direct-Evidence Method

» The McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework*

» Using Circumstantial Evidence to Prove Employment Discrimination

NEED HELP?

If you need legal help, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case; our law office litigates claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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 16, 2025January 16, 2025

Harassment & Terms or Conditions of Employment: A Closer Look

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what criteria do courts use to determine whether workplace harassment is sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the terms and conditions of employment? 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

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (WA STATE): THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

“To establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show the following four elements:

(1) the harassment was unwelcome,

(2) the harassment was because [plaintiff was a member of a protected class],

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

(4) the harassment is imputable to the employer.

Loeffelholz v. University of Washington*, 175 Wn.2d 264, 275 (Wash. 2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original) (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

ELEMENT 3: TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

“The third element requires that the harassment be sufficiently pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Davis v. West One Automotive Group*, 140 Wn.App. 449 (Div. 3 2007), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1039 (Wash. 2008) (citing Glasgow v. Georgia-Pac. Corp.*, 103 Wash.2d 401, 406, 693 P.2d 708 (1985)).

criteria COURTS USE to determinE WHETHER harassment affects terms or conditions of employment

The Washington State “Court of Appeals has adopted [the following] criteria ‘[t]o determine whether the harassment is such that it affects the conditions of employment …:

[a] the frequency and severity of the discriminatory conduct;

[b] whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and

[c] whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.'”

Blackburn v. Department of Social and Health Services*, 186 Wn.2d 250, 261 n.4 (Wash. 2016) (citing Washington v. Boeing Co., 105 Wn.App. 1, 10, 19 P.3d 1041 (2000) (citing Sangster v. Albertson’s, Inc.*, 99 Wn.App. 156, 163, 991 P.2d 674 (2000) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)))) (second alteration in original) (paragraph formatting and emphasis added).