Uncategorized Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

March 24, 2022October 21, 2024

Employee-Handbook Liability

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

(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 AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT DOCTRINE

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

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

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

ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY

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

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

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

[c)] that the promise was breached.

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

CONSIDERATIONS

1. The Crucial Question

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

2. Questions of Fact

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

3. Ambiguous Discipline Policies Create Issue of Fact

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

LEARN MORE

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.

February 24, 2022October 21, 2024

Employer Liability for Nonemployee Harassment

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

Advertisement

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

EMPLOYMENT

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

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (HARASSMENT)

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

It is an unfair practice for any employer:

…

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

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

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

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

(1) the harassment was unwelcome,

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

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

(4) the harassment is imputable to the employer.

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

THE FOURTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO THE EMPLOYER)

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

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

EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR NONEMPLOYEE HARASSMENT

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

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

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

Id. at 111, (internal citations omitted).

CONCLUSION

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

Rendering a Verdict: WA State Versus Federal Court

Under both Washington State and federal statutes and court rules, what is the difference in number of jurors required to render a jury verdict in a civil trial? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement

WASHINGTON STATE

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

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

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

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEARN MORE

January 13, 2022October 21, 2024

Individual Capacity State Officials & Section 1983 Qualified Immunity

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (hereinafter, “Section 1983“), may a state official sued in their individual capacity be entitled to qualified immunity? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY STATE OFFICIALS

A state official sued in his or her individual capacity may be entitled to qualified immunity, unless the official violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff and that right was “clearly established.” Nelson v. Corr. Med. Servs., 583 F.3d 522, 528 (8th Cir. 2009).

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

“[Q]ualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial, that is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Rudebusch v. Hughes, 313 F.3d 506, 514 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (emphasis in original)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

As a result, “qualified immunity safeguards all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Id. (citing Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of the Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

This paradigm “allows ample room for reasonable error on the part of the [official].” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). And “[i]t encompasses both mistakes of fact and mistakes of law.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

SECTION 1983 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: THE TWO-STEP PROCESS

Analysis of a Section 1983 qualified-immunity issue involving an individual capacity state official typically involves a two-step process.

STEP 1: The first step requires the following question be answered: “Taken in the light most favorable to the the party asserting injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right?” Rudebusch, 313 F.3d at 514 (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001)).

STEP 2: “Only after determining whether the constitutional right was violated does the court proceed to the second step of the two-part inquiry as follows: whether the law was so clearly established that ‘a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right?'” Id. (internal citations omitted).

Affirmative answers at both steps of the inquiry will typically prevent the state official from claiming qualified immunity. However, “while the sequence set forth [in Saucier ] is often appropriate, it should no longer be regarded as mandatory, and courts are permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.” Nelson v. Corr. Med. Servs., 583 F.3d at 528 (citing, Pearson v. Callahan, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815-16, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)).

THE POLICY

Ultimately, “the concern of the immunity inquiry is to acknowledge that reasonable mistakes can be made as to the legal constraints on particular [official] conduct.” Id. (internal citations omitted). And, thus, the qualified immunity analysis “occurs in the specific context of ‘the situation … confronted’ by the official.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

CONCLUSION

Under Section 1983, I believe that a state official sued in their individual capacity may be entitled to qualified immunity.

LEARN MORE

January 13, 2022October 21, 2024

Top 3 Employment Discrimination Laws

As an employment attorney in Washington State, I often litigate claims on behalf of employee-plaintiffs based on several common employment discrimination laws. Here are the top 3 employment discrimination laws that I litigate in Washington State . . .

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

Advertisement

#3 — THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 (§ 1981)

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) is a federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981. A plaintiff cannot state a claim under Section 1981 unless he has (or would have) rights under the existing (or proposed) contract that he wishes ‘to make and enforce.’” See Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470, 479-80 (2006). And the employment-at-will relationship is a contract for Section 1981 purposes.

Section 1981 is also known as “Equal rights under the law” and it states as follows:

(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.

42 U.S.C. § 1981.

#2 — TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter, “Title VII”) “makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex[;] … makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit[;] … and requires that employers reasonably accommodate applicants’ and employees’ sincerely held religious practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.” U.S. EEOC Website (emphasis added).

Two other federal anti-discrimination laws, inter alia, broaden the protected classes, as follows:

(1) Age Discrimination In Employment Act (ADEA) which protects people who are 40 or older from both discrimination on account of age and unlawful retaliation against a person “because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit”; and

(2) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that prohibits discrimination and unlawful retaliation against a qualified person with a disability. The ADA also “makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.” Further, the ADA requires that “employers reasonably accommodate the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.”

See id.

#1 — THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), it is an unfair practice, with very few exceptions, for an employer to refuse to hire any person, to discharge or bar any person from employment, or to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms and conditions of employment because of age (40+); sex (including pregnancy); marital status; sexual orientation (including gender identity); race; color; creed; national origin; citizenship or immigration status; honorably discharged veteran or military status; HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C status; the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability; and state employee or health care whistleblower status. See RCW 49.60.

It is also an unfair practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee, because the employee complained about job discrimination or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit. See id.

WLAD is a broad and powerful remedial statue that was originally enacted in 1949 as an employment discrimination law. See Fraternal Order of Eagles v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order, 148 Wn.2d 224, 237, 59 P.3d 655 (Wash. 2002) (internal citations omitted); Laws of 1949, ch. 183. Remarkably, Washington State enacted the WLAD 15 years before 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.

–gw

December 2, 2021October 21, 2024

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

Under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what is statutorily protected activity when pursuing a claim of unlawful retaliation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

“To establish a prima facie case* of retaliation [using the McDonnell Douglas ‘evidentiary burden-shifting’ framework*] an employee must show three things:

(1) the employee took a statutorily protected action,

(2) the employee suffered an adverse employment action, and

(3) a causal link between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403, 411, 430 P.3d 229 (2018) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis, paragraphs, and hyperlinks added).

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

ELEMENT #1 — STATUTORILY PROTECTED ACTIVITY

The first element of the prima facie case requires plaintiffs to establish that they “engaged in a statutorily protected activity.” The meaning of this requirement can be found under the anti-retaliation section of the WLAD statute, as follows:

RCW 49.60.210
Unfair practices—Discrimination against person opposing unfair practice—Retaliation against whistleblower.

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

(2) It is an unfair practice for a government agency or government manager or supervisor to retaliate against a whistleblower as defined in chapter 42.40 RCW.

(3) It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, government agency, government manager, or government supervisor to discharge, expel, discriminate, or otherwise retaliate against an individual assisting with an office of fraud and accountability investigation under RCW 74.04.012, unless the individual has willfully disregarded the truth in providing information to the office.

RCW 49.60.210 (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

Thus, pursuant to section one, above, statutorily protected activity includes: (1) opposing any practices forbidden by WLAD, or (2) filing a charge, testifying, or assisting in any proceeding under WLAD.

“Violation of this provision [(i.e., RCW 49.60.210)] supports a retaliation claim.” Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 12 Wn.App.2d 557, 570 (Div. 2 2020), review denied, 468 P.3d 616 (2020) (referencing Cornwell, 192 Wn.2d at 411).

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

Adverse Employment Actions: A Closer Look

Definition of Prima Facie Case*

Employment-Discrimination Hotlines & Unlawful Retaliation

The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

Top 3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

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

LEARN MORE

November 18, 2021October 21, 2024

Failure to Accommodate Religious Practices

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), how does one establish a prima facie claim of Failure to Reasonably Accommodate Religious Practices? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement

FEDERAL LAW

“In the employment context, the WLAD has three federal counterparts:

[(1)] Title VII, [42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.,]

[(2)] [T]he Age discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), [29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.,] … and

[(3)] [T]he Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)[, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.].

Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 490, 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014) (footnotes omitted) (hyperlinks and paragraph formatting added). However, “[t]he United States Supreme Court has never listed the elements of a prima facie claim for failure to accommodate religious practices.” Id. at 501 (footnote omitted).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS: A TEST BASED UPON THE DISPARATE IMPACT BURDEN-SHIFTING SCHEME

“Several Courts of Appeals … have adopted a [failure-to-accommodate-religious-practices] test based on the ‘disparate impact’ burden-shifting scheme established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).” Kumar, 180 Wn.2d at 490 (referencing, e.g., Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 731 F.3d 1106, 1122 (10th Cir. 2013); Walden v. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, 669 F.3d 1277, 1293 (11th Cir. 2012); Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Firestone Fibers & Textiles Co., 515 F.3d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 2008); Berry v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 447 F.3d 642, 655 (9th Cir. 2006)) (emphasis added).

WA STATE: FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE RELIGIOUS PRACTICES: THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

In Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, the Washington State Supreme Court applied the above failure-to-accommodate-religious-practices test for the first time. According to that test, “a plaintiff establishes a prima facie claim of failure to accommodate religious practices by showing that[:]

(1) he or she had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with employment duties;

(2) he or she informed the employer of the beliefs and the conflict; and

(3) the employer responded by subjecting the employee to threatened or actual discriminatory treatment.

Id. at 501-02 (citing Porter v. City of Chicago, 700 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2012); Lawson v. Washington, 296 F.3d 799, 804 (9th Cir. 2002)) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).

THE 3RD ELEMENT: IMMEDIATE RISK OF ACTUAL FIRING/DEMOTION IS IRRELEVANT

Regarding the third element of the prima facie case: “An employee need not be at immediate risk of actual firing or demotion to demonstrate threatened or actual discriminatory treatment.” Id. at 514 n.30 (referencing, e.g., Berry v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 447 F.3d 642, 655 (9th Cir. 2006) (“employee established an ‘adverse employment action’ for purposes of prima facie religious accommodation claim where employer ‘formally instruct[ed] him not to pray with or proselytize to clients'” ); Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Townley Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d 610, 614 n.5 (9th Cir. 1988) (“An employee does not cease to be discriminated against because he temporarily gives up his religious practice and submits to the employment policy.”)) (internal quotation marks 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

November 11, 2021October 21, 2024

The Tort of Battery

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

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

Advertisement

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

November 4, 2021October 21, 2024

The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Impact

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, what is the prima facie case for disparate impact discrimination? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement

DISPARATE IMPACT: THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

The Washington State Supreme Court “has held that the WLAD creates a cause of action for disparate impact.” Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 503, 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014) (citing E-Z Loader Boat Trailers, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 106 Wn.2d 901, 909, 726 P.2d 439 (1986)).

“To establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, the plaintiff must show that[:]

(1) a facially neutral employment practice

(2) falls more harshly on a protected class.

Id. at 503 (citing Oliver v. P. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 106 Wn.2d 675, 679, & n.1, 724 P.2d 1003 (1986)) (internal citation omitted) (paragraph formatting added).

EXAMPLE: KUMAR v. GATE GOURMET, INC.

For example, in Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014), an employer’s meal policy that was based on security concerns barred employees from bringing in their own food for lunch; and it required employees to eat only employer-provided food. However, the policy forced a group of plaintiff-employees to either work without food or eat food that violated their religious beliefs (i.e., a protected class falling under “creed“).

The plaintiffs subsequently filed suit and alleged that the employer maintained a facially neutral meal policy that fell more harshly on those within a protected class, and the court found a viable claim of disparate impact discrimination–reversing the trial court’s previous dismissal and remanding the case for further proceeding consistent with the opinion.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Origin of the Disparate Impact Claim

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

October 22, 2021October 21, 2024

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.

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 he or she 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)).

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

September 30, 2021October 21, 2024

Public Accommodations Discrimination

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

Advertisement

WLAD: PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

“The [Washington State] legislature has … directed … [the courts] to liberally construe WLAD to eradicate discrimination, including discrimination in places of public accommodation.” Floeting v. Group Health Cooperative, 192 Wn.2d 848 (Wash. 2019) (citing RCW 49.60.010, .020; see also Jin Zhu v. N. Cent. Educ. Serv. Dist.-ESD 171, 189 Wn.2d 607, 614, 404 P.3d 504 (2017) (“quoting Marquis v. City of Spokane, 130 Wn.2d 97, 108, 922 P.2d 43 (1996)”)). “The fundamental object of laws banning discrimination in public accommodations is to vindicate the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments.” Id. at 855 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION–DECLARATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (RCW 49.60.030(1)(B))

“Under RCW 49.60.030(1)(b), WLAD secures the right to ‘full enjoyment’ of any place of public accommodation, including the right to purchase any service or commodity sold by any place of public accommodation ‘without acts directly or indirectly causing persons of [a protected class] to be treated as not welcome, accepted, desired, or solicited.'” Floeting, 192 Wn.2d at 852-53 (referencing RCW 49.60.040(14)) (hyperlink added).

MEANING OF “FULL ENJOYMENT”

Thus, “WLAD protects the customer’s ‘full enjoyment’ of the services and privileges offered in public accommodations.” Id. at 855 (citing RCW 49.60.030(1)(b)). “WLAD’s broad definition of ‘full enjoyment’ extends beyond denial of service to include liability for mistreatment that makes a person feel ‘not welcome, accepted, desired, or solicited.'” Id. (citing RCW 49.60.040(14)). “Denial or deprivation of services on the basis of one’s protected class is an affront to personal dignity.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (FELL STANDARD (RCW 49.60.215))

“More than twenty years ago, … [the Washington State Supreme Court] set forth the standard for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination in a place of public accommodation under RCW 49.60.215.” Floeting, 192 Wn.2d at 853 (referencing Fell v. Spokane Transit Auth., 128 Wn.2d 618, 637, 911 P.2d 1319 (1996)) (footnote omitted) (hyperlinks added).

“Fell established that in order to make a prima facie case of discrimination under RCW 49.60.215[ ][:]

a plaintiff must prove that

(1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class,

(2) the defendant’s establishment is a place of public accommodation,

(3) the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff when it did not treat the plaintiff in a manner comparable to the treatment it provides to persons outside that class, and

(4) the plaintiff’s protected status was a substantial factor that caused the discrimination.

Floeting, 192 Wn.2d at 583-84 (citing Fell, 128 Wn.2d at 637) (internal citations omitted) (paragraph formatting, hyperlinks, and emphasis added).

LEARN MORE

September 19, 2021October 21, 2024

Canon of Presumed Awareness

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

Advertisement

THE CANON OF PRESUMED AWARENESS

Under the canon of presumed awareness: “The Legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretation of its statutes.” Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Company, 129 Wn.2d 572, 581 (Wash. 1996) (Talmadge, J., concurring) (reasoning 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 Friends of Snoqualmie Valley v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 118 Wash.2d 488, 496, 825 P.2d 300 (1992))).

In Dailey, the majority opinion essentially held that punitive damages are not available for employment discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, because the legislature has not expressly authorized them. See id at 574-75.

Read our related article entitled Presumption of Acquiescence concerning a similar Washington State canon of statutory construction.

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

August 5, 2021October 21, 2024

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

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

Advertisement

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION

The Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60, “prohibits retaliation against a party asserting a claim based on a perceived violation of his civil rights or participating in an investigation into alleged workplace discrimination.” Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC, 178 Wn.App 734, 753 (Div. 2 2013) (citing RCW 49.60.210).

There are additional protections. The relevant law states as follows:

RCW 49.60.210
Unfair practices—Discrimination against person opposing unfair practice—Retaliation against whistleblower.

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

(2) It is an unfair practice for a government agency or government manager or supervisor to retaliate against a whistleblower as defined in chapter 42.40 RCW.

RCW 49.60.210 (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

“Violation of this provision supports a retaliation claim.” Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 12 Wn.App.2d 557, 570 (Div. 2 2020), review denied, 468 P.3d 616 (2020) (referencing Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403, 411, 430 P.3d 229 (2018)).

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

“To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee must show that[:]

(1) he or she engaged in a statutorily protected activity,

(2) the employer took an adverse employment action against the employee, and

(3) there is a causal connection between the employee‘s activity and the employer‘s adverse action.

Id. at 574 (citing Cornwell, 192 Wn.2d at 411) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added).

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

Adverse Employment Actions: A Closer Look

Definition of Prima Facie Case*

Employment-Discrimination Hotlines & Unlawful Retaliation

The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

Top 3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

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

LEARN MORE

August 1, 2021October 21, 2024

The Prima Facie Case: Reasonable Accommodations

Under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what is the prima facie case for failure to provide reasonable accommodations? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS (WA STATE)

AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE: Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) “gives employers an affirmative duty to accommodate an employee‘s disability.” Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 12 Wn.App.2d 557, 586 (Div. 2 2020), review denied, 468 P.3d 616 (2020) (citing RCW 49.60.180(2); LaRose v. King County, 8 Wn.App.2d 90, 125, 437 P.3d 701 (2019)) (hyperlinks added).

SCOPE: “A reasonable accommodation must allow the employee to work in the environment and perform the essential functions of her job without substantially limiting symptoms.” Id. (citing Frisino v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 160 Wn.App. 765, 777-78, 249 P.3d 1044 (2011)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

MULTIPLE METHODS OF ACCOMMODATION: “Where multiple potential methods of accommodation exist, the employer is entitled to select the appropriate method.” Id. (citing Frisino, 160 Wn.App. at 779).

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (WA STATE)

“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.

Id. (citing LaRose, 8 Wn.App.2d at 125-26) (paragraph formatting and emphasis and hyperlinks added).

TAKE OUR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TEST (VIDEO):

WA State Torts: Public Disclosure of Private Facts

Under Washington State laws, what is the tort of “public disclosure of private facts“? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement

COMMON LAW RIGHT TO PRIVACY

“Washington recognizes a common law right to privacy.” White v. Township of Winthrop, 128 Wn.App. 588, 593-94, 116 P.3d 1034, (Div. 3 2005) (citing Reid v. Pierce County, 136 Wash.2d 195, 207, 961 P.2d 333 (1998)). A violation of this right is considered a tort. A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which remedies may be obtained.

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS

“Public disclosure of private facts” is a privacy tort in Washington State. Washington courts “base actions for … [commission of this tort] as articulated in RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652D (1977):

One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that

(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and

(b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.

White, 128 Wn.App at 593-94 (citing Reid, 136 Wash.2d at 205, 961 P.2d 333)) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

EXAMPLE

“As concerns the general nature of matters protected by the right of privacy:

Every individual has some phases of his life and his activities and some facts about himself that he does not expose to the public eye, but keeps entirely to himself or at most reveals only to his family or to close personal friends.

Sexual relations, for example, are normally entirely private matters, as are family quarrels, many unpleasant or disgraceful or humiliating illnesses, most intimate personal letters, most details of a man’s life in his home, and some of his past history that he would rather forget.

When these intimate details of his life are spread [b]efore the public gaze in a manner highly offensive to the ordinary reasonable man, there is an actionable invasion of his privacy, unless the matter is one of legitimate public interest.

White, 128 Wn.App. at 594 (citing Cowles Publ’g Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wash.2d 712, 721, 748 P.2d 597 (1988)) (internal citations omitted) (paragraph formatting added).

LEARN MORE

June 29, 2021October 20, 2024

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Under Washington State law, how is the actual-knowledge standard applied to causation issues for purposes of unlawful retaliation cases? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION (WA STATE)

“To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee must show three things: (1) the employee took a statutorily protected action, (2) the employee suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link [(i.e., causation)] between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Cornwell v. Microsoft Corporation, 430 P.3d 229, 234 (Wash. 2018) (citing Currier v. Northland Servs., Inc., 182 Wn.App. 733, 742, 332 P.3d 1006 (2014); see also Wilmot v. Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Corp, 118 Wn.2d 46, 68, 821 P.2d 18 (1991) (“establishing the retaliation test in the worker’s compensation context”)) (emphasis and hyperlink added).

The focus of this article is the third element: causal link (or causation). “An employee [shows a causal link (i.e., causation)] ‘by [revealing] … that retaliation was a substantial factor motivating the adverse employment decision.’ ” Id. at 235 (Wash. 2018) (citing Allison v. Hous. Auth., 118 Wn.2d 79, 96, 821 P.2d 34 (1991)) (emphasis added).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (WA STATE)

“[T]o avoid summary judgment on causation, the employee must show only that a reasonable jury could find that retaliation was a substantial factor in the adverse employment decision.” Id. at 235 (internal citation omitted). “Employees may rely on the following facts to show this: (1) the employee took a protected action, (2) the employer had knowledge of the action, and (3) the employee was subjected to an adverse employment action.” Id. (citing Wilmot, 118 Wn.2d at 69, 821 P.2d 18) (emphasis added).

The 2nd element (i.e., the employer had knowledge of the action) is at issue; one associated standard of causation applied to unlawful retaliation cases is the “actual knowledge” standard (hereinafter, “actual-knowledge standard”).

CAUSATION: THE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE STANDARD (WA STATE)

Under this standard, “the employer [must] have actual knowledge of the employee’s protected action in order to prove causation.” Id. at 235. (internal citations omitted).

The policy behind the actual-knowledge standard is that “[b]ecause retaliation is an intentional act, an employer cannot retaliate against an employee for an action of which the employer is unaware.” Id. at 235-36.

But “[a] decision-maker need not have actual knowledge about the legal significance of a protected action.” Id. at 236 (emphasis added). “Instead, the decision-maker need have actual knowledge only that the employee took the action in order to prove a causal connection.” Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).

At summary judgment, “[t]he proper inquiry is whether the … evidence suggests a causal connection between the protected activity and the subsequent adverse action sufficient to defeat summary judgment.” Id. (internal citation omitted) (alteration in original) (emphasis added).

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

Adverse Employment Actions: A Closer Look

Definition of Prima Facie Case*

Employment-Discrimination Hotlines & Unlawful Retaliation

The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

Top 3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

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

LEARN MORE

June 29, 2021October 20, 2024

WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, may an employee-plaintiff build a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on a hostile work environment when using the direct evidence approach? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), it is an unfair practice, with very few exceptions, for an employer to refuse to hire any person, to discharge or bar any person from employment, or to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms and conditions of employment because of age (40+); sex (including pregnancy); marital status; sexual orientation (including gender identity); race; color; creed; national origin; honorably discharged veteran or military status; HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C status; the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability; the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability; and state employee or health care whistleblower status.

It is also an unfair practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee because the employee complained about job discrimination or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

DISPARATE TREATMENT

Disparate treatment is a form of employment discrimination, and it occurs when an employer treats some people less favorably than others based on protected class.

Accordingly, to establish a prima facie disparate treatment discrimination case, a plaintiff must show that his employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of their protected status. Alonso v. Qwest Commc’ns Co., LLC, 178 Wn.App. 734, 743, 315 P.3d 610 (Wash.App. Div. 2 2013) (citing Johnson v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 80 Wn.App. 212, 226, 907 P.2d 1223 (1996)).

A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case by either offering direct evidence of an employer’s discriminatory intent, or by satisfying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test that gives rise to an inference of discrimination. Id. at 743-44 (citing Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483, 491, 859 P.2d 26, 865 P.2d 507 (1993)). This article solely addresses the direct evidence approach.

DIRECT EVIDENCE TEST

The plaintiff can establish a prima facie case under the direct evidence test by offering direct evidence of the following:

1. The defendant employer acted with a discriminatory motive; and

2. The discriminatory motivation was a significant or substantial factor in an employment decision.

Id. at 744 (citing Kastanis, 122 Wn.2d at 491).

SIGNIFICANT/SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR

The 2nd second element–discriminatory motivation was a significant or substantial factor in an employment decision–is at issue here. Stated differently, the plaintiff must establish that the discriminatory motive (1st element) was a significant or substantial factor in the subject employment decision. Obviously, employee-plaintiffs will be claiming that the subject employment decision was adverse to their interests.

However, an adverse employment action involves a change in employment conditions that is more than an inconvenience or alteration of one’s job responsibilities, such as reducing an employee’s workload and pay. Id. at 748 (citing Campbell v. State, 129 Wn.App. 10, 22, 118 P.3d 888 (2005), review denied, 157 Wn.2d 1002 (2006)).

A demotion or adverse transfer, or a hostile work environment, may amount to an adverse employment action. Id. at 746 (citing Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wn.App. 454, 465, 98 P.3d 827 (2004), review denied, 154 Wn.2d 1007 (2005)) (emphasis added).

CONCLUSION

An employee-plaintiff might be able to build a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on a hostile work environment. However, the prima facie case will be incomplete unless the employee-plaintiff is also able to establish the 1st element of the direct evidence test; this article only addresses the 2nd element.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Definition of Prima Facie Case**

» Disparate Treatment: A Closer Look**

» Disparate Treatment: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification**

» Disparate Treatment vs. Disparate Impact Discrimination**

» Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment**

» Disparate Treatment: Pretext by Comparison

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

» Prima Facie Case: The Replacement Element**

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment via Direct Evidence

» WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

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

LEARN MORE

June 29, 2021October 20, 2024

Express Direction Rule & Final Judgments: WA State

Under Washington State law, what is the Express Direction Rule and how is it applied to judgments in Washington State Superior Courts? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement

CIVIL RULE 54(b) — JUDGMENTS ON MULTIPLE CLAIMS

Washington State Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b) governs entry of judgments on multiple claims and provides that “the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination in the judgment, supported by written findings, that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” Fluor Enterprises, Inc. v. Walter Construction, LTD., 141 Wn.App. 761, 766, 172 P.3d 368, (Div. I 2007) (quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, the courts have held that four things are required for entry of a final judgment under CR 54(b):

(1) more than one claim for relief or more than one party against whom relief is sought;

(2) an express determination that there is no just reason for delay;

(3) written findings supporting the determination that there is no just reason for delay; and

(4) an express direction for entry of the judgment.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., 141 Wn.App. at 766-67 (quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

EXPRESS DIRECTION FOR ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT

Washington State appellate courts have clarified that element four–an express direction for entry of the judgment–requires that the trial court’s order must expressly direct entry of a CR 54(b) final judgment or it will not meet the requirements of CR 54(b). Fluor Enterprises, Inc., 141 Wn.App. at 769.

In Fluor Enterprises, Inc., there was more than one claim for relief and the trial court’s order on one of the claims did not expressly direct entry of a CR 54(b) final judgment. Consequently, the court held that the trial court’s order as to that claim did not meet the requirements of CR 54(b). Id.

ALL CLAIMS FOR & AGAINST ALL PARTIES

It is worth noting that Washington State appellate courts have expressly mandated that entry of a final judgment should await the resolution of all claims for and against all parties. Id. at 767 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders with Ethics and Accountability Now (C.L.E.A.N.), 119 Wn.App. 665, 82 P.3d 1199, rev. denied, 152 Wn.2d 1023, 101 P.3d 107 (2004)).

Furthermore, the appellate courts have held that the following reasons justify a trial court’s delay of the entry of a final judgment until all claims had been resolved:

(1) to offset judgments favorable to each side before any enforcement activity takes place;

(2) to preclude the disruptive effects of enforcement and appellate activity while trial court proceedings are still ongoing; and

(3) to avoid a multiplicity of appeals.

Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

LEARN MORE

June 28, 2021October 20, 2024

Top 3 Employment Discrimination Theories

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), there are several common employment-discrimination theories that plaintiffs tend to litigate. Here are my top 3 employment discrimination theories under WLAD:

(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. Some links in this article take the reader to 3rd party websites including our second website: Williams Law Group, PS. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

#3 – DISPARATE TREATMENT

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), it is an unfair practice, with very few exceptions, for an employer to refuse to hire any person, to discharge or bar any person from employment, or to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms and conditions of employment because of age (40+); sex (including pregnancy); marital status; sexual orientation (including gender identity); race; color; creed; national origin; citizenship or immigration status; honorably discharged veteran or military status; HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C status; the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability; the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability; and state employee or health care whistleblower status.

It is also an unfair practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee because the employee complained about job discrimination or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Disparate treatment occurs when an employer treats some people less favorably than others because of membership in a protected class. See Alonso v. Qwest Communications Co., 178 Wn.App 734, 744, 315 P.3d 610 (Div. 2 2013) (internal citations omitted).

“To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show that [his/her] employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of their protected class.” Id. (internal citations omitted) (hyperlink added).

#2 – HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

Hostile work environment is also known “Harassment,” and it’s actionable only if it is sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. See id. 749 (citing Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d 256, 261, 103 P.3d 729 (2004)).

In order to establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim, the plaintiff must alleged facts proving that (1) the harassment was unwelcome, (2) the harassment was because the plaintiff was a member of a protected class, (3) the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, and (4) the harassment is imputable to the employer.” Id. (citing Loeffelholz v. Univ. of Wash., 175 Wn.2d 264, 275, 285 P.3d 854 (2012)).

#3 – UNLAWFUL RETALIATION

The Washington Law Against Discrimination also prohibits retaliation against a party asserting a claim based on a perceived violation of his/her civil rights or participating in an investigation into alleged workplace discrimination. Id. at 753 (citing RCW 49.60.210).

To establish a prima facie retaliation case, a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity, (2) his employer took an adverse employment action against him, and (3) there is a causal link between the activity and the adverse action. Id. at 753-54 (internal citation 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

June 28, 2021October 20, 2024

Top 3 Hostile Work Environment Issues

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), hostile work environment (also known as “harassment”) is a form of unlawful employment discrimination.

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

Advertisement

WLAD: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

Generally, to establish a claim of hostile work environment, the plaintiff must establish the following: the harassment was unwelcome; the harassment was because of membership in a protected class; the harassment affected the terms and conditions or employment; and the harassment can be imputed to the employer.

Here are my top 3 hostile work environment issues under the WLAD:

#1 – The Harassment was Unwelcome & Because of Protected Class

In order to establish harassment, “the complained of conduct must be unwelcome in the sense that the plaintiff-employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the further sense that the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive.” Glasgow v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 406 (Wash. 1985).

Moreover, the harassment must be on account of the plaintiff’s membership in one or more protected classes. See id. “The question to be answered here is: would the employee have been singled out and caused to suffer the harassment if the employee had not been in” the protected class? See id.

#2 – The Harassment Affected Terms or Conditions of Employment

“Casual, isolated or trivial manifestations of a discriminatory environment do not affect the terms or conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate the law.” Id. at 406-07. To be actionable, “the harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id.

#3 – The Harassment is Imputed to Employer

Harassment is imputed to the employer where there is sufficient proof that an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participates in the harassment. Id. at 407.

Otherwise, “to hold an employer responsible for the discriminatory work environment created by a plaintiff’s supervisor(s) or co-worker(s), the employee must show that the employer (a) authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and (b) failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.” Id.

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.

–gw

THE AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT DOCTRINE

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

ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY

CONSIDERATIONS

1. The Crucial Question

2. Questions of Fact

3. Ambiguous Discipline Policies Create Issue of Fact

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

EMPLOYMENT

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (HARASSMENT)

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

THE FOURTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO THE EMPLOYER)

EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR NONEMPLOYEE HARASSMENT

CONCLUSION

READ MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC

need help?

WASHINGTON STATE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY STATE OFFICIALS

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

SECTION 1983 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: THE TWO-STEP PROCESS

THE POLICY

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE

#3 — THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 (§ 1981)

#2 — TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

#1 — THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

LEARN MORE

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

ELEMENT #1 — STATUTORILY PROTECTED ACTIVITY

READ MORE

LEARN MORE

FEDERAL LAW

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS: A TEST BASED UPON THE DISPARATE IMPACT BURDEN-SHIFTING SCHEME

WA STATE: FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE RELIGIOUS PRACTICES: THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

THE 3RD ELEMENT: IMMEDIATE RISK OF ACTUAL FIRING/DEMOTION IS IRRELEVANT

LEARN MORE

THE TORT OF BATTERY (WA STATE)

THE ELEMENTS

(1) OFFENSIVE BODILY CONTACT

(2) INTENT

(3) FORCE

(4) FRAUD/DURESS

LEARN MORE

DISPARATE IMPACT: THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

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

SECOND ELEMENT (UNWELCOME)

THIRD ELEMENT (BECAUSE OF DISABILITY)

FOURTH ELEMENT (TERMS & CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT)

FIFTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO EMPLOYER)

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

WLAD: PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION–DECLARATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (RCW 49.60.030(1)(B))

MEANING OF “FULL ENJOYMENT”

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (FELL STANDARD (RCW 49.60.215))

LEARN MORE

THE CANON OF PRESUMED AWARENESS

RELATED ARTICLE

LEARN MORE

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

READ MORE

LEARN MORE

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS (WA STATE)

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (WA STATE)

TAKE OUR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TEST (VIDEO):

READ MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC

LEARN MORE

COMMON LAW RIGHT TO PRIVACY

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS

EXAMPLE