Uncategorized Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

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.

(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

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

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.

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.

(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).

“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

June 28, 2021October 20, 2024

FRCP 35 Exams Based on Emotional Distress (9th Circuit)

Under federal law, does a plaintiff’s claim of emotional distress place his/her mental condition in controversy for purposes of FRCP 35 exams? 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 GENERAL RULE

If a plaintiff objects to a FRCP 35 exam, the court has discretion to enter an order compelling examination only if the employer can establish:

(A) that a physical or mental condition of the person sought to be examined is “in controversy,” and

(B) that “good cause” exists.

See Houghton v. M & F Fishing, Inc., 198 F.R.D. 666, 667 (2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Courts in jurisdictions throughout the country are divided on the issue as to whether a claim of emotional distress places the plaintiff’s mental condition at issue (in controversy). But the modern trend in courts is to increasingly find that it does not.

FRCP 35 EXAMS BASED ON EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: 9TH CIRCUIT

The general position of courts in the 9th Circuit appears to be that a claim for emotional distress damages, by itself, is not sufficient to place the plaintiff’s mental condition in controversy for purposes of FRCP 35(a). Ford v. Contra Costa County, 179 F.R.D. 579, 580 (N.D.Cal. 1998) (referencing, Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 92-97 (S.D.Cal.1995) (thoroughly surveying the relevant case law, distinguishing several unconventional cases including Smedley v. Capps, Staples, Ward, hastings & Dodson, 820 F.Supp. 1227 (N.D.Cal.1993), and determining not to set Smedly, inter alia, as precedent)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Instead, the trend for 9th Circuit courts is as follows:

[T]he movant must also demonstrate that (1) the plaintiff has pled a cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff has alleged a specific mental or psychiatric injury; (3) the plaintiff has pled a claim for unusually severe emotional distress; (4) the plaintiff plans to offer expert testimony to support a claim of emotional distress and/or (5) the plaintiff has conceded that his or her mental condition is ” in controversy” for purposes of FRCP 35(a).

Id. (internal citation omitted).

These courts have further found that a Plaintiff merely seeking damages in excess of a million dollars for humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress does not justify a request for a mental examination. Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. at 97.

GARDEN VARIETY EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Thus, for example, a plaintiff seeking “garden variety emotional distress” damages in excess of one million dollars, pursuant to claims solely under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, may argue that he/she is not subject to FRCP 35 examination, because his/her mental condition is not in controversy (provided he/she does not satisfy the additional above mentioned requirements set forth in Ford v. Contra Costa County, 179 F.R.D. at 580 (N.D.Cal. 1998), supra); but whoever asserts this type argument should be prepared to fight it out in Court — the defendant(s) will likely file a motion.

LEARN MORE

June 28, 2021October 20, 2024

The Same Actor Inference Defense

Under federal law, what is the “same actor inference” defense? 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

SAME ACTOR INFERENCE DEFENSE

The “Same-Actor-Inference” (Inference) is a potential employer defense to a claim of employment discrimination under federal law. It is applicable where the same actor is responsible for both the hiring and the firing of a discrimination plaintiff, and both actions occur within a short period of time; in that case, a strong inference arises that there was no discriminatory action. Coghlan v. American Seafoods Co. LLC, 413 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The Inference is based on the principle that an employer’s initial willingness to hire the employee-plaintiff is strong evidence that the employer is not biased against the protected class to which the employee belongs. Id. The Inference can be further described in terms of scope and proximity.

SCOPE

The scope of the Inference makes it is also applicable where the employee was not actually fired but merely offered a less desirable job assignment. Id. Moreover, the Same-Actor Inference is neither a mandatory presumption nor a mere possible conclusion for the jury to draw; it is a strong inference that a court must take into account on a summary judgment motion. Id. at 1098.

Thus, it is not valid to argue that the Inference is not a proper consideration at summary judgment.

PROXIMITY

As far as proximity: for the Inference to apply, it is not required that the alleged discrimination take place within a “short” period of time after the favorable action; for example, a 3 year gap in time was held to be short enough in time for the Inference to apply. Id. at 1097 (citing Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir.2000) (basing affirmance of summary judgment in an employment discrimination case in part on the fact that the plaintiff “was fired by the same man who had hired him three years earlier”)).

However, proximity becomes a potential plaintiff rebuttal when there is an allegation that unlawful bias developed by employer-actor after the favorable action and proximate to the negative employment action. See id.

The bottom line is that the Inference, if properly raised by the employer, is difficult for a plaintiff to overcome.

LEARN MORE

June 27, 2021October 20, 2024

Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

In Washington State, unlawful retaliation claims fail for a variety of reasons. Unlawful retaliation is a form of unlawful employment discrimination 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

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION: UNLAWFUL RETALIATION

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) prohibits an employer from retaliating against a person for opposing a discriminatory practice forbidden by WLAD or for participating in a proceeding to determine whether discrimination occurred. See RCW 49.60.210.

To establish a prima facie claim of unlawful retaliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he/she] engaged in statutorily protected activity, (2) [his/her] employer took an adverse employment action against [him/her], and (3) there is a causal link between the activity and the adverse action. Alonso v. Qwest Communications Co., 178 Wn.App. 734, 754, 315 P.3d 610 (2013).

TOP 3 REASONS UNLAWFUL RETALIATION CLAIMS FAIL

Here’s my opinion of the top 3 reasons why unlawful retaliation claims fail in Washington State:

#3 – No Causation

A plaintiff bringing suit based on unlawful retaliation, RCW 49.60.210, must prove causation by showing that retaliation was a substantial factor motivating the adverse employment decision. Allison v. Housing Authority of City of Seattle, 118 Wn.2d 79, 96 (Wash. 1991).

Two common ways (but not the only ways) to establish causation include (1) proximity in time, and (2) abrupt change in performance reviews. It should be clear how an abrupt change in performance reviews from satisfactory to poor can support an argument for causation; however, “proximity in time” requires further explanation.

“Proximity in time” supports an argument for causation if the plaintiff can show the employer’s knowledge that the plaintiff engaged in protected activities and that the proximity in time between the protected action and the allegedly retaliatory employment action is minimal.

This element can pose a problem in litigation if the employee-plaintiff is unable to argue either “proximity in time” or “change in performance reviews”, and there is no other evidence that retaliation was a substantial factor motivating the adverse employment decision.

#2 – No Adverse Employment Action

To establish an adverse employment action, “the employee must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, meaning that it would have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Boyd v. State, 187 Wn.App. 1, 13, 349 P.3d 864 (Div. 2 2015) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). It includes but is not limited to a demotion or adverse transfer, or a hostile work environment. Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

The problem typically occurs when the employee alleges an adverse employment action that is merely bothersome; because a viable “adverse employment action involves a change in employment that is more than an inconvenience or alteration of one’s job responsibilities.” Alonso v. Qwest Communications Co., 178 Wn.App. at 746.

#1 – No Protected Activity

An employee engages in WLAD-protected activity when he opposes employment practices forbidden by antidiscrimination law or other practices that he reasonably believed to be discriminatory. Id. at 753.

However, a general complaint about an employer’s unfair conduct does not rise to the level of protected activity in a discrimination action under WLAD absent some reference to the plaintiff’s protected status. Id.

A common problem that occurs is when an employee-plaintiff either completely fails to complain of discrimination to the employer or fails to properly complain of discrimination to the employer by omitting reference to one or more specific protected classes.

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

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 27, 2021October 20, 2024

Washington Priority of Action Rule: Same Relief

Under the Washington Priority of Action Rule, how do Washington State courts determine if the relief is the same? 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

PRIORITY OF ACTION RULE

The Washington Priority of Action Rule (Rule) will only apply if the two relevant cases involve identical (1) subject matter, (2) parties, and (3) relief. Am. Mobile Homes of Wash. Inc. v. Seattle-First Nat’l Bank, 115 Wn.2d 307, 317, 796 P.2d 1276 (1990).

These factors must be established before the Rule should be applied. Id. The identity of the above elements must be such that a decision in one tribunal would bar proceedings in the other because of res judicata. State ex rel. Evergreen Freedom Foundation v. Washington Educ. Ass’n, 111 Wn.App. 586, 607, 49 P.3d 894 (Div. 2 2002).

If the Rule applies, the court which first gains jurisdiction of a cause retains the exclusive authority to deal with the action until the controversy is resolved. Am. Mobile Home, 115 Wn.2d at 316-17.

ELEMENT #3: IDENTICAL RELIEF

The Washington State Supreme Court has established the following factors to determine if “the relief is the same” for purposes of the Washington Priority of Action Rule:

(1) whether the form of relief available to each tribunal is the same (FORM OF RELIEF); and

(2) whether the first tribunal can resort to another to equalize any disparity in the amount of relief available between the first and second lawsuits (EQUALIZE DISPARITY)?

See, State ex rel. Evergreen Freedom Found., 111 Wn. App. at 607, 49 (holding that the remedy was the same in both suits, because the type of relief available to both courts was the same, and because the administrative agency could otherwise seek relief in superior court in the first case to equalize any disparity in the amount of relief available in the administrative tribunal).

EXAMPLE: EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUND v. WASHINGTON EDUC. ASS’N

In Evergreen Freedom Found. v. Washington Educ. Ass’n, plaintiff attempted to amend its citizens lawsuit in superior court by adding claims that were contemporaneously being pursued by an administrative agency with statutory authority to preempt plaintiffs’ lawsuit; plaintiff sought, inter alia, the same form of remedy (i.e., a fine) as the administrative agency based on the same statute.

The court ruled that the relief was the same in both actions and upheld the trial court’s application of the priority of action rule, because the relief in both cases was a monetary fine pursuant to RCW 42.17.395(4), and because any disparity in the amount of relief available could be eliminated if the administrative tribunal ushered the claim to superior court.

The court then analyzed res judicata and concluded jurisdiction in the second court was improper under Washington Priority of Action Rule. State ex rel. Evergreen Freedom Found. v. Washington Educ., 111 Wn. App. 586, 49 P.3d 894 (2002).

LEARN MORE

June 26, 2021October 20, 2024

Top 3 Reasons Disparate Treatment Claims Fail

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), disparate treatment (also known as “classic discrimination”) 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

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION: DISPARATE TREATMENT

WLAD makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment because of membership in certain protected classes. See Blackburn v. Department of Social and Health Services, 186 Wn.2d 250, 258, 375 P.3d 1076 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Disparate treatment is the most easily understood type of discrimination. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). And “the elements of a prima facie case for disparate treatment based on protected status are not absolute but vary based on the relevant facts.” Marin v. King County, 194 Wn.App. 795, 808, 378 P.3d 203, (Div. 1 2016) (referencing Grimwood v. Univ. of Puget Sound, Inc., 110 Wn.2d 355, 362-63, 753 P.2d 517 (1988)) (hyperlink added).

To learn more about protected classes and disparate treatment, view our YouTube videos:

MY TOP 3 REASONS DISPARATE TREATMENT CLAIMS FAIL

Here are my top 3 reasons WLAD disparate treatment claims fail (based on my point of view as an employment discrimination attorney in Washington State):

#3 – Failed to Perform Satisfactorily

One of the elements that a plaintiff must typically prove to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination is that he/she was performing satisfactorily. Marin v. King County, 194 Wn.App. 795, 808-09, 378 P.3d 203, (Div. 1 2016) (citing Anica v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 120 Wn.App. 481, 488, 84 P.3d 1231 (2004)). A history of, inter alia, poor performance reviews, suspensions, and/or write-ups, can derail a disparate treatment case.

#2 – Failed to Suffer an Adverse Employment Action

Generally, “this means a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Id. (citing Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Keep in mind that this is merely a sample and not an exhaustive list.

Plaintiffs alleging disparate treatment often find their claim dismissed at summary judgment, because they failed to prove that they suffered an associated adverse employment action.

#1 – Failed to Raise Reasonable Inference of Unlawful Discrimination

The plaintiff must show that the unlawful actions occurred under circumstances that raise a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination. Id. (citing Anica v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 120 Wn.App. 481, 488, 84 P.3d 1231 (2004)). The plaintiff must typically point to evidence that the employer took an adverse action against the plaintiff because of his/her protected class. See id. at 810. One way to prove this is by showing that similarly situated employees (also known as “comparators”) outside of the plaintiff’s protected class were treated more favorably.

LEARN MORE

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

–gw

June 26, 2021October 20, 2024

Behind Closed Doors: WLAD & ESD Appeals

Under Washington State law, may an employment discrimination plaintiff use favorable findings from a previous unemployment benefits appeal against the associated defendant employer, when pursuing a claim under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD)? 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

A COMMON ISSUE

Occasionally, one of my employment discrimination clients will vigorously attempt to convince me that they received favorable findings against their employer during their unemployment benefits appeal conducted through the Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings; and that the findings will help them win their subsequent discrimination lawsuit under WLAD. Unfortunately, I usually have bad news for those clients.

Stated differently, the issue is whether findings made by an administrative law judge (ALJ) during a Washington State unemployment benefits appeal hearing may be admitted in a separate employment discrimination lawsuit outside the scope of Title 50 RCW between an individual and the individual’s present or prior employer?

WA STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT

The Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD) was created in 1939. Its mission is to “partner to connect employers and job seekers – supporting transitions to new jobs and empowering careers.”

If an individual applies for unemployment benefits through the ESD and is denied; then the individual can request an appeal. In that case, the ESD will forward the appeal to the Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) which is not part of the ESD. The OAH will then assign an administrative law judge to hear the case.

TITLE 50 RCW

The Washington State laws relating to the ESD are contained in Title 50 RCW, and the relevant law states as follows:

Any finding, determination, conclusion, declaration, or final order made by the commissioner, or his or her representative or delegate, or by an appeal tribunal, administrative law judge, reviewing officer, or other agent of the department for the purposes of Title 50 RCW, shall not be conclusive, nor binding, nor admissible as evidence in any separate action outside the scope of Title 50 RCW between an individual and the individual’s present or prior employer before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the United States, regardless of whether the prior action was between the same or related parties or involved the same facts or was reviewed pursuant to RCW 50.32.120.

RCW 50.32.097 (emphasis and hyperlink added).

CONCLUSION

Findings made by an administrative law judge during a Washington State unemployment benefits appeal hearing are generally not admissible in a subsequent WLAD employment discrimination lawsuit (before an arbitrator, court, or judge) outside the scope of Title 50 RCW between the employee and the employee’s present or prior employer.

LEARN MORE

June 26, 2021October 20, 2024

Property Interests in Continued Employment: WA State

In Washington State, do Washington State civil service employees–dischargeable only for cause–have property interests in continued employment? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement

GOLDBERG TWO-STEP PROCESS

In Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970), “[t]he Supreme Court … enunciated a two-step process for analyzing cases involving deprivation of a governmental benefit” in violation of due process, as follows:

1. it must first be ascertained whether the interest at issue is a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest; and

2. if the interest is a protected one, the court must determine if the deprived beneficiary has been afforded due process.

See Belnap v. Chang, 707 F.2d 1100, 1102 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

In relation to element 1 above, “property interests are not created by the Constitution, they are created, and their dimensions are defined, by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source, such as state law. . . .” Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494, 53 USLW 4306 (1985) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).

RELEVANT WA STATE LAW

Accordingly, the Washington State Supreme Court has held that “protected property interests can arise from express or implied contracts for continued employment, objective representations of tenure, . . . or even collective bargaining agreements providing for continued employment.” Danielson v. City of Seattle, 108 Wn.2d 788, 796, 742 P.2d 717 (1987) (internal citations omitted). As a result, “constitutionally protected property interests may arise in public employment where civil service laws provide an express or implied contract for continued employment.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

CONCLUSION

Thus, I believe that civil service employees dischargeable only for cause have protected property interests in continued employment. See id. at 796-97 (internal citations omitted).

Example: Danielson v. City of Seattle

For example, in Danielson, a Seattle police officer committed theft and was subsequently discharged. The Seattle Municipal Code and the Seattle City Charter established that no civil service employees may be discharged from employment except for cause. As a result, the court held that the police office had a property interest in continued employment. Id.

LEARN MORE

June 26, 2021October 20, 2024

WLAD Civil Suits & Administrative Actions

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), may plaintiffs bring private civil suits through administrative actions and associated appeals? 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 WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

“Washington’s law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, is a broad remedial statute, the purpose of which is to eliminate and prevent discrimination on the basis of” specific protected classes. Rhoades v. Department of Labor and Industries, 143 Wn.App. 832, 181 P.3d 843 (Wash.App. Div. 3 3008) (citing RCW 49.60.010).

THE CIVIL SUIT REQUIREMENT

“[WLAD] declares that the right to be free from such discrimination is a civil right enforceable by private civil action by members of the enumerated protected classes.” Id. (citing RCW 49.60.030(1), (2)) (emphasis added).

The issue is whether an administrative proceeding is considered a civil action for purposes of WLAD claims. The Washington State Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Rhoades v. Department of Labor and Industries. Id.

EXAMPLE: RHOADES v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES

In Rhoades, plaintiff Tammy Rhoades “filed a claim with the Department [of Labor and Industries] after she was injured in the course of employment[.]” Rhoades, 143 Wn.App. at 836. “The Department awarded her a permanent partial disability benefit.” Id. She appealed, and “in March 2001, the Department determined that Ms. Rhoades was totally disabled and she was placed on the pension rolls.” Id. “The Department affirmed this order after reconsideration in September 2002.” Id.

However, “Ms. Rhoades disagreed with the Department’s calculation of her monthly pension amount [and] appealed the September 2002 pension order to the Board of Industrial Appeals (Board).” Id. In 2004, “the Board found that the Department’s September 2002 order was correct” except for a small interest calculation. Id. at 837.

Plaintiff Rhoades “appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the Board’s order.” Id. She then appealed to Division 3 of the Washington State Court of Appeals wherein she included, inter alia, a claim that the Department violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60. Id. at 835-36. The court of appeals found that “an administrative action and appeal is an inappropriate vehicle for” claims under RCW 49.60. Id. at 845 (emphasis added). “[A] civil suit is required.” Id.

CONCLUSION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), plaintiffs cannot bring private civil suits through administrative actions and associated appeals.

LEARN MORE

June 26, 2021October 20, 2024

The Absurd-Consequences Rule

Under Washington State canons of statutory construction, what is the Absurd-Consequences Rule? 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 ABSURD-CONSEQUENCES RULE

In Washington State, courts “will avoid literal reading of a statute which would result in unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences.” Fraternal Order of Eagles v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wn.2d 224, 239, 59 P.3d 655 (Wash. 2002) (citing State v. McDougal, 120 Wn.2d 334, 350, 841 P.2d 1232 (1992)). “The spirit or purpose of an enactment should prevail over … express but inept wording.” Id. (citing State v. Day, 96 Wn.2d 646, 648, 638 P.2d 546 (1981)) (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

June 26, 2021October 20, 2024

Section 1981 & Non-Employment Contracts (Ninth Circuit)

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Equal Rights Under The Law, are non-employment contracts protected in the Ninth Circuit? 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 and Terms of Use before proceeding.)

Advertisement

ISSUE OF FIRST IMPRESSION: LINDSEY v. SLT LOS ANGELES, LLC

The problem is how to adapt the four elements of a prima facie case established in the employment discrimination context to claims of racial discrimination in non-employment contracts arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; this was a matter of first impression in the Ninth Circuit in Lindsey v. SLT Los Angeles, LLC, 447 F.3d 1138, 1145 (9th Cir. 2005).

The Plaintiff-Appellant (“Lindsey” dba “E-Jays Panache Images”) was a business that presented fashion shows; all representatives were African-American, and audience members were primarily African-American as well. The Defendant-Appellee (“SLT Los Angeles” or “the Westin”) owned and operated, inter alia, a Grand Ballroom in their subject Westin Hotel.

Lindsey contracted for use of the Grand Ballroom for an event, but on the day of the event, there was an apparent mix up by the Westin. He essentially alleged that they were denied the Grand Ballroom in favor of a Bar Mitzvah because of their race.

Lindsey sued in U.S. District Court for, inter alia, violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and “the district court concluded that Appellant … [Lindsey] had failed to prove that the Westin’s actions, which had prevented Panache from hosting its annual Mother’s Day Fashion Show in the Grand Ballroom of the Westin Hotel, presented a prima facie case of race discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981.” Id. at 1141.

Lindsey appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and it reversed the district court and remanded for trial. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the decisions of other circuits that “the first three elements of the McDonnell Douglas test are easily adapted to claims arising under section 1981 outside of an employment context.” Id.

Accordingly, “the first three elements require a plaintiff to show that: (1) it is a member of a protected class, (2) it attempted to contract for certain services, and (3) it was denied the right to contract for those services.” Id. (referencing Christian v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 252 F.3d 862, 872 (6th Cir.2001); Bratton v. Roadway Package Sys., Inc., 77 F.3d 168, 176 (7th Cir.1996)) (emphasis added).

CONFLICTS BETWEEN 6TH & 7TH CIRCUITS

However, the court identified that “the Seventh and Sixth Circuits conflict over adaptation of the fourth McDonnell Douglas requirement, which, as applied by the district court … [in Lindsey], requires that such services remained available to similarly-situated individuals who were not members of the plaintiff’s protected class.” Id. (emphasis added).

The court then pointed out that “the Seventh Circuit adopts this requirement … but the Sixth Circuit concludes that this flat requirement is too rigorous in the context of the denial of services by a commercial establishment, because customers often have no way of establishing what treatment was accorded to other customers.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

The 9th Circuit reasoned that “the Sixth Circuit distinguishes the commercial services context from the employment context, where records are kept and there is a paper trail disclosing what treatment is given to similarly-situated others.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Thus, “the Sixth Circuit alters the elements to require: (a) that plaintiff was deprived of services while similarly situated persons outside the protected class were not; and/or (b) that plaintiff received services in a markedly hostile manner and in a manner which a reasonable person would find objectively discriminatory.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit found the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning compelling, but did not decide whether its modification/relaxation of the fourth element of a prima facie case under Section 1981 is required in many or all cases arising in a commercial, non-employment context. The court found that the plaintiff in Lindsey offered clear evidence that a similarly-situated group of a different protected class was offered the contractual services which were denied to the plaintiff, and, thus, it applied all four elements of the more rigorous rule without deciding whether the fourth element must be relaxed.

CONCLUSION

It appears that in the Ninth Circuit, the following may be required to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in non-employment contracts arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1981:

1) membership in a protected class;

2) an attempt to contract for certain services;

3) denial of the right to contract for those services; and (possibly);

4) plaintiff was deprived of services while similarly situated persons outside the protected class were not [AND/OR] plaintiff received services in a markedly hostile manner and in a manner which a reasonable person would find objectively discriminatory.

See Lindsey, 447 F.3d at 1145. When the plaintiff offers clear evidence that a similarly-situated group of a different protected class was offered the contractual services which were denied to the plaintiff, the court will likely apply all four elements of the more rigorous rule without deciding whether the fourth element must be relaxed. See id.

LEARN MORE

June 26, 2021October 20, 2024

Top 3 Courts for WLAD Claims

Depending on the circumstances, a plaintiff may have a choice of litigating their Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) case in one of several different courts. Here are my top 3 courts for litigating WLAD claims (based on my point of view as an employment discrimination attorney 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 – UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

United States District Courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; this is known as federal question jurisdiction. It is not uncommon for Plaintiffs to bring claims in the same lawsuit under both WLAD and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) — or other federal anti-discrimination laws (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 1981, etc.). Depending on the circumstances of each case, adding the Title VII claims may give U.S. District Courts original federal-question jurisdiction over the matter.

U.S. District Courts also have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between, inter alia, citizens of different States; this is known as diversity jurisdiction. Again, depending on the circumstances of each case, WLAD plaintiffs that initially sue employers–incorporated outside of Washington State–in state court may end up in U.S. District Court based on diversity jurisdiction.

#2 – WASHINGTON STATE DISTRICT COURTS

Washington State District Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. For civil (employment discrimination) matters, this means that the court will have jurisdiction over the matter if, for each claimant, the value of the claim or the amount at issue does not exceed one hundred thousand dollars, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees (check the Revised Code of Washington for current dollar amounts). Thus, this court may also be a viable option for a WLAD plaintiff if the value of the case is appropriate.

#1 – WASHINGTON STATE SUPERIOR COURTS

Washington State Superior Courts are courts of general jurisdiction; typically, there is no maximum or minimum dollar amount that must be at issue. And, unlike U.S. District Courts, a unanimous jury is not required in order to render a favorable verdict for the plaintiff. Superior courts are commonly used by plaintiffs’ attorneys to bring WLAD claims.

LEARN MORE

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

–gw

June 26, 2021October 20, 2024

Top 3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful retaliation is common legal theory that plaintiff-employees assert under employment discrimination law; causation is one of several elements that must be proven. The Washington State Supreme Court has considered several standards of causation pursuant to claims of unlawful retaliation under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.

(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 [unlawful] 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 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.’ ” Cornwell, 430 P.3d 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).

In this article, the 2nd element (i.e., the employer had knowledge of the action) is at issue, and the Washington State Supreme Court has considered several associated standards of causation.

TOP 3 STANDARDS OF UNLAWFUL-RETALIATION CAUSATION (WA STATE):

Here are my top 3 standards of unlawful-retaliation causation (WA State):

#3 — THE GENERAL-CORPORATE-KNOWLEDGE STANDARD

The general-corporate-knowledge standard is somewhat of a misnomer, because the Washington State Supreme Court both raised and dismissed it in Cornwell v. Microsoft Corporation, 430 P.3d 229, 235 (Wash. 2018) (“We decline to address the ‘general corporate knowledge’ standard in this case.”) (footnote omitted).

Nevertheless, the Court declared, “Under this standard, the jury can still find retaliation in circumstances where the particular decision-maker denies actual knowledge of the plaintiff’s protected activities, ‘so long as … the jury concludes that an agent is acting explicitly or implicit[ly] upon the orders of a superior who has the requisite knowledge.’ ” Id. at 241, n. 6 (citing Gordon v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111, 117 (2d Cir. 2000)) (alteration in original; second alteration added).

This standard “may be useful in situations where many individuals act collectively in a large company[ ] [.]” Id.

#2 — THE KNEW-OR-SUSPECTED STANDARD

“The knew-or-suspected standard incorporates the ‘actual knowledge’ standard, infra, and also encompasses cases in which the employer suspects that an employee engaged in protected action.” Id. at 237 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).

This standard “[r]equires sufficient evidence to reasonably infer ‘both that [a supervisor] either knew or suspected’ that an employee took a protected action ‘and that there was a causal connection between this knowledge or suspicion and [the employee’s] termination.’ ” Id. (citing Hernandez v. Spacelabs Med. Inc., 343 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2003)) (alteration in original).

EXAMPLE: “This standard applies, for example, when a supervisor has actual knowledge that a complaint was made but has only a suspicion regarding who made the complaint and subsequently takes an adverse employment action based on that suspicion.” Id.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT: “So long as an employee produces evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that retaliation had taken place, this is sufficient to survive summary judgment.” Id. (citing Hernandez at 1114). “And while, a jury could believe the supervisor’s version of events rather than the employee’s, the jury must be permitted to consider and weigh evidence.” Id.

#1 — THE ACTUAL-KNOWLEDGE STANDARD

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

LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE IRRELEVANT: 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).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT: 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*

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

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

June 26, 2021October 20, 2024

The Relative and Qualifying Words-and-Phrases Rule

Under Washington State canons of statutory construction, what is the Relative and Qualifying Words-and-Phrases Rule? 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 RELATIVE AND QUALIFYING WORDS-AND-PHRASES RULE

In Washington State, “[c]ourts construe relative and qualifying words and phrases, both grammatically and legally, to refer to the last antecedent if a contrary intention does not appear in the statute.” Fraternal Order of Eagles v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wn.2d 224, 240, 59 P.3d 655 (Wash. 2002) (citing In re Application of Andy, 49 Wn.2d 449, 302 P.2d 963 (1956); see, e.g. Caughey v. Employment Sec. Dep’t, 81 Wn.2d 597, 602, 503 P.2d 460 (1972) (“[W]here no contrary intention appears in a statute, relative and qualifying words and phrases refer to the last antecedent.”)).

“The reason for this rule … is to make clear what is being modified.” 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

June 26, 2021October 20, 2024

The Diversity Jurisdiction Gambit

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, is a plaintiff that files an employment discrimination case originally in Federal court, based on diversity jurisdiction, entitled to costs when the court finally adjudges that Plaintiff is entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $75,000? 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

DIVERSITY & SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

As an initial matter, United States District Courts have original jurisdiction (Diversity Jurisdiction) of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States; there are additional provisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Further, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have Supplemental Jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution; but, there are exceptions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)-(b).

In Washington State, employment discrimination cases typically involve these two jurisdictional bases; Plaintiffs often combine Title VII claims with Washington Law Against Discrimination claims and associated state tort claims. Employer-defendants in such cases are often incorporated out of state. This article addresses the scenario wherein the plaintiff elects to initially file suit in federal court based on similar circumstances.

THE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION GAMBIT

There may be risks for the discrimination plaintiff that initially files in Federal court. The relevant law is 28 U.S.C. § 1332(b), and it states as follows:

(b) Except when express provision therefor is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where the plaintiff who files the case originally in the Federal courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $75,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interest and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff.

Id. According to this statute, a plaintiff may be denied costs and/or required to pay costs in the event of a favorable verdict that is below $75,000.

CONCLUSION

Subject to exceptions, a plaintiff that files an employment discrimination case originally in Federal court based on diversity jurisdiction must, arguably, recover $75,000 or more (without regard to setoff and counterclaim; and exclusive of interest and costs), or the court may deny costs authorized by statute to the plaintiff. Moreover, the court may also impose costs on the plaintiff.

But this law may be superseded by an express provision in a statute of the United States. In any event, this is a gambit that some plaintiffs may not want to take – proceed with caution.

LEARN MORE

June 26, 2021October 20, 2024

Top 3 Employment Discrimination Agencies

In Washington State, employees may seek recourse for employment discrimination through federal, state, and local governmental agencies. Here’s my countdown of the top 3 employment discrimination agencies in the state of Washington (based on my point of view as an employment discrimination attorney):

Advertisement

#3 — MUNICIPAL CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENTS

Some municipalities (e.g., Seattle Office for Civil Rights, Tacoma Human Rights Commission, etc.) have established departments that work to resolve, inter alia, employment discrimination and retaliation complaints based on protected classes. The services offered by these departments vary from city to city, and not all municipalities in Washington State maintain such departments.

#2 — U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces Federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. You may seek recourse through the EEOC if you experience employment discrimination that involves:

1. Unfair treatment because of your race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

2. Harassment by managers, co-workers, or others in your workplace, because of your race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

3. Denial of a reasonable workplace accommodation that you need because of your religious beliefs or disability.

4. Retaliation because you complained about job discrimination, or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Visit the EEOC Website to learn more.

#1 — WASHINGTON STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, is a state law that prohibits discriminatory practices in the areas of employment, places of public resort, accommodation, or amusement, in real estate transactions, and credit and insurance transactions based on protected classes.

Protected classes include the following: race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, families with children, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, 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.

WLAD also prohibits retaliation against persons who engage in protected activity in relation to discriminatory practices, and those who file health care and state employee whistleblower complaints.

The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the Washington Law Against Discrimination. It works to prevent and eliminate discrimination through complaint investigation, alternative dispute resolution, and education, training and outreach activities.

Visit the WSHRC Website to get more information.

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

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

LEARN MORE

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION (WA STATE)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (WA STATE)

CAUSATION: THE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE STANDARD (WA STATE)

READ MORE ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

DISPARATE TREATMENT

DIRECT EVIDENCE TEST

SIGNIFICANT/SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR

CONCLUSION

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

CIVIL RULE 54(b) — JUDGMENTS ON MULTIPLE CLAIMS

EXPRESS DIRECTION FOR ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT

ALL CLAIMS FOR & AGAINST ALL PARTIES

LEARN MORE

#3 – DISPARATE TREATMENT

#2 – HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

#3 – UNLAWFUL RETALIATION

LEARN MORE

WLAD: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

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

#2 – The Harassment Affected Terms or Conditions of Employment

#3 – The Harassment is Imputed to Employer

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

THE GENERAL RULE

FRCP 35 EXAMS BASED ON EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: 9TH CIRCUIT

GARDEN VARIETY EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

LEARN MORE

SAME ACTOR INFERENCE DEFENSE

SCOPE

PROXIMITY

LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION: UNLAWFUL RETALIATION

TOP 3 REASONS UNLAWFUL RETALIATION CLAIMS FAIL

#3 – No Causation

#2 – No Adverse Employment Action

#1 – No Protected Activity

READ MORE ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

PRIORITY OF ACTION RULE

ELEMENT #3: IDENTICAL RELIEF

EXAMPLE: EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUND v. WASHINGTON EDUC. ASS’N

LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION: DISPARATE TREATMENT

MY TOP 3 REASONS DISPARATE TREATMENT CLAIMS FAIL

#3 – Failed to Perform Satisfactorily

#2 – Failed to Suffer an Adverse Employment Action

#1 – Failed to Raise Reasonable Inference of Unlawful Discrimination

LEARN MORE

A COMMON ISSUE

WA STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT

TITLE 50 RCW

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE

GOLDBERG TWO-STEP PROCESS

RELEVANT WA STATE LAW

CONCLUSION