Under Washington State laws, what are considered adverse employment actions when pursuing a claim of unlawful retaliation? Here’s my point of view.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Boyd v. State*, 187 Wn.App. 1, 11-12, 349 P.3d 864 (Div. 2 2015) (citing Estevez v. Faculty Club of Univ. of Wash., 129 Wn.App. 774, 797, 120 P.3d 579 (2005); Scrivener v. Clark Coll.*, 181 Wn.2d 439, 446, 334 P.3d 541 (2014)) (hyperlinks added) (footnote omitted).
ELEMENT #2 — ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION
Within the context of unlawful retaliation claims, “[a]n adverse employment action involves a change in employment that is more than an inconvenience or alteration of one’s job responsibilities.” Boyd*, 187 Wn.App. at 13 (citing Alonso v. Qwest Commc’ns Co.*, 178 Wn.App. 734, 746, 315 P.3d 610 (2013)).
THE GENERAL STANDARD
To establish an adverse employment action, “[t]he 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.'” Id. (citing Burlington N., 548 U.S. 53, 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Ultimately, “whether a particular action would be viewed as adverse by a reasonable employee is a question of fact appropriate for a jury.” Id. at 13-14 (citations omitted).
Demotions, Adverse Transfers, or Hostile Work Environments
An adverse employment action “includes[, but is not limited to,] a demotion or adverse transfer, or a hostile work environment.” Id. (citing Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wn.App. 454, 465, 98 P.3d 827 (2004) (quotingRobel v. Roundup Corp.*, 148 Wn.2d 35, 74 n.24, 59 P.3d 611 (2002))).
Materially Adverse Reassignments
“Whether a particular reassignment is materially adverse depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, and ‘should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position.'” Id. (citing Tyner v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 137 Wn.App. 545, 565, 154 P.3d 920 (2007)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
FAQ: What is WA State’s law against employment discrimination?
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
FAQ: What is WA State’s law against employment discrimination?
answer:
The Washington Law Against Discrimination* (WLAD), enacted in 1949, is a potent statute that covers a broad array of categories, including, but not limited to, employment discrimination. The relevant statute states as follows:
Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of civil rights.
RCW 49.60.030(1) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added). The WLAD protects, inter alia, employees from the unfair practices of employers.
UNFAIR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS
Under the WLAD, certain employers are prohibited from engaging in specific unfair practices in employment. The relevant law states as follows:
(1) To refuse to hire any person because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification: PROVIDED, That the prohibition against discrimination because of such disability shall not apply if the particular disability prevents the proper performance of the particular worker involved: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require an employer to establish employment goals or quotas based on sexual orientation.
[DISCRIMINATE IN COMPENSATION OR IN OTHER TERMS/CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT]
(3) To discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability: PROVIDED, That it shall not be an unfair practice for an employer to segregate washrooms or locker facilities on the basis of sex, or to base other terms and conditions of employment on the sex of employees where the commission by regulation or ruling in a particular instance has found the employment practice to be appropriate for the practical realization of equality of opportunity between the sexes.
[STATEMENTS, ADVERTISEMENTS, PUBLICATIONS, APPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT, INQUIRIES IN CONNECTION WITH PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYMENT]
(4) To print, or circulate, or cause to be printed or circulated any statement, advertisement, or publication, or to use any form of application for employment, or to make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment, which expresses any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification: PROVIDED, Nothing contained herein shall prohibit advertising in a foreign language.
The WLAD also outlaws certain types of retaliation: “[i]t 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 … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination], or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination].” RCW 49.60.210*. Moreover, “[i]t is an unfair practice for a government agency or government manager or supervisor to retaliate against a whistleblower as defined in chapter 42.40* RCW.” RCW 49.60.210*.
WLAD REMEDIES
“Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in violation of … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination] shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter* or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964* as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601* et seq.).” RCW 49.60.030(2)*.
If you need help with your employment issue, then consider a consultation with an experienced employment discrimination attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
HOW CAN AN EMPLOYMENT-LAW ATTORNEY HELP ME?
answer:
In today’s workforce, instances of workplace discrimination continue to cast shadows over the professional lives of numerous employees. Discrimination, spanning various factors such as age, citizenship or immigration status, creed/religion, disability, gender, national origin, opposition to a discriminatory practice, race, and sexual orientation, presents a formidable challenge to workplace equality. For individuals grappling with discrimination in their professional environments, seeking legal counsel emerges as a pivotal recourse. Here’s why consulting with an attorney holds paramount importance for employees encountering discrimination in the workplace:
1. Understanding Legal Rights
When faced with workplace discrimination, comprehending one’s legal rights becomes imperative. Employment laws exhibit nuances and intricacies, often varying from state to state. Consulting with an employment law attorney facilitates a comprehensive understanding of applicable legal frameworks, such as the Washington Law Against Discrimination*, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
2. Guidance Through the Process
The journey of initiating a discrimination claim can prove arduous, particularly for individuals unversed in legal proceedings. An attorney proficient in employment law extends invaluable guidance and support across every phase of the process. This encompasses assistance in evidence collection, completion of necessary paperwork, and adept representation during negotiations or court proceedings. Through their expertise, attorneys ensure the protection of clients’ rights and enhance the prospects of securing a favorable outcome.
3. Preservation of Evidence
Evidentiary support serves as the backbone of discrimination claims, pivotal in substantiating allegations. However, the task of gathering and preserving evidence presents challenges, particularly for employees still employed by the discriminating entity. Attorneys adept in employment law offer strategic counsel on evidence collection, encompassing documentation such as emails, performance evaluations, and witness statements. Moreover, they safeguard against potential retaliatory actions from the employer, crucial in bolstering the strength of the case.
4. Advocacy and Negotiation
Many discrimination cases witness resolution through negotiation or mediation, circumventing the need for protracted litigation. Here, the role of an attorney as an advocate assumes significance, advocating for clients’ interests and facilitating constructive dialogue with the opposing party. By elucidating available options and potential outcomes, attorneys empower clients to make informed decisions conducive to their objectives.
5. Pursuit of Compensation
Employees subjected to workplace discrimination may be entitled to compensation for various damages incurred, ranging from lost wages to emotional distress. Attorneys proficient in employment law conduct a thorough evaluation of clients’ claims, considering factors such as the severity of discrimination and its impact on professional trajectories. Subsequently, they navigate the legal terrain to secure rightful compensation through formal channels.
6. Holding Employers Accountable
Beyond seeking redress for individual grievances, pursuing legal action against discriminatory practices holds broader implications. By holding employers accountable for their actions, employees contribute to the collective endeavor of fostering equitable and inclusive work environments. Such actions serve as deterrents against future instances of discrimination, fostering a culture of accountability and respect within organizations.
CONCLUSION
In essence, the decision to seek legal counsel holds profound significance for employees grappling with workplace discrimination. Attorneys practicing employment law serve as steadfast allies, offering guidance, advocacy, and strategic representation. By harnessing legal avenues, employees not only assert their rights but also propel the ongoing fight for workplace equality and justice.
FAQ: What are the elements of Unlawful Retaliation in WA State?
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
FAQ: What are the elements of Unlawful Retaliation in WA State?
(3) there is a causal connection between the employee‘s activity and the employer‘s adverse action.
Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 12 Wn.App.2d 557, 574 (Div. 2 2020), review denied, 468 P.3d 616 (2020) (citing Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403, 411, 430 P.3d 229 (2018)) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added).
THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION
Unlawful Retaliation is a theory of liability under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), Chapter 49.60 RCW. The WLAD “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).
WLAD REMEDIES
“Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in violation of … [WLAD] shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.).” RCW 49.60.030(2).
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our blog articles concerning this topic:
(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
What is considered retaliatory action against state-employee whistleblowers (WA State)?
The relevant law concerning retaliation against state-employee whistleblowers is found under RCW 42.40.050*, as follows:
RCW 42.40.050.
Retaliatory action against whistleblower—Remedies.
(1)(a) Any person who is a whistleblower, as defined in RCW 42.40.020*, and who has been subjected to workplace reprisal or retaliatory action is presumed to have established a cause of action for the remedies provided under chapter 49.60* RCW [(i.e., The Washington Law Against Discrimination)].
(b) For the purpose of this section, “reprisal or retaliatory action” means, but is not limited to, any of the following:
(i) Denial of adequate staff to perform duties;
(ii) Frequent staff changes;
(iii) Frequent and undesirable office changes;
(iv) Refusal to assign meaningful work;
(v) Unwarranted and unsubstantiated letters of reprimand or unsatisfactory performance evaluations;
(vi) Demotion;
(vii) Reduction in pay;
(viii) Denial of promotion;
(ix) Suspension;
(x) Dismissal;
(xi) Denial of employment;
(xii) A supervisor or superior behaving in or encouraging coworkers to behave in a hostile manner toward the whistleblower;
(xiii) A change in the physical location of the employee’s workplace or a change in the basic nature of the employee’s job, if either are in opposition to the employee’s expressed wish;
(xiv) Issuance of or attempt to enforce any nondisclosure policy or agreement in a manner inconsistent with prior practice; or
(xv) Any other action that is inconsistent compared to actions taken before the employee engaged in conduct protected by this chapter, or compared to other employees who have not engaged in conduct protected by this chapter.
(2) The agency presumed to have taken retaliatory action under subsection (1) of this section may rebut that presumption by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that there have been a series of documented personnel problems or a single, egregious event, or that the agency action or actions were justified by reasons unrelated to the employee’s status as a whistleblower and that improper motive was not a substantial factor.
(3) Nothing in this section prohibits an agency from making any decision exercising its authority to terminate, suspend, or discipline an employee who engages in workplace reprisal or retaliatory action against a whistleblower. However, the agency also shall implement any order under chapter 49.60* RCW (other than an order of suspension if the agency has terminated the retaliator).
Under Washington State laws, state-employee whistleblowers who experience retaliatory actions have various remedies available to them. As defined under RCW 42.40.050, retaliatory actions encompass a wide range of behaviors, including but not limitedto denial of adequate staff, unwarranted demotion, and hostile behavior from supervisors or coworkers. However, agencies have the opportunity to rebut these claims by demonstrating documented personnel issues or justifying actions unrelated to whistleblowing.
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.
Under Washington State laws, what are “protected classes” within the context of employment 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
INTRODUCTION: PROTECTED CLASSES (WA STATE)
Washington State has comprehensive employment-discrimination laws to shield workers from unjust treatment rooted in specific attributes. An integral facet of these legal provisions is the acknowledgment of “protected classes.” This article will enumerate the protected classes within the employment-rights framework of the Washington Law Against Discrimination.
I. The Washington Law Against Discrimination: EMPLOYMENT
The Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD“) is a potent statute enacted in 1949, and it covers a broad array of categories including, but not limited to employment, as follows:
Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of civil rights.
(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;
…
RCW 49.60.030(1)(a) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added). The WLAD protects, inter alia, employees from the unfair practices of employers.
II. Unfair Practices of Employers: generally
Under the WLAD, certain employers are prohibited from engaging in specific unfair practices in employment. The relevant law states as follows:
(1) To refuse to hire any person because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification: PROVIDED, That the prohibition against discrimination because of such disability shall not apply if the particular disability prevents the proper performance of the particular worker involved: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require an employer to establish employment goals or quotas based on sexual orientation.
[Discriminate in Compensation or in Other Terms/Conditions of Employment]
(3) To discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability: PROVIDED, That it shall not be an unfair practice for an employer to segregate washrooms or locker facilities on the basis of sex, or to base other terms and conditions of employment on the sex of employees where the commission by regulation or ruling in a particular instance has found the employment practice to be appropriate for the practical realization of equality of opportunity between the sexes.
[Statements, Advertisements, Publications, Applications for Employment, Inquiries in Connection With Prospective Employment]
(4) To print, or circulate, or cause to be printed or circulated any statement, advertisement, or publication, or to use any form of application for employment, or to make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment, which expresses any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification: PROVIDED, Nothing contained herein shall prohibit advertising in a foreign language.
III. unfair practices of employers: filing or participating in a disrimination complaint (UNLAWFUL RETALIATION)
The WLAD also outlaws certain types of retaliation: “[i]t 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 … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination], or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination].” RCW 49.60.210. Moreover, “[i]t is an unfair practice for a government agency or government manager or supervisor to retaliate against a whistleblower as defined in chapter 42.40 RCW.” RCW 49.60.210.
NOTE: The foregoing unfair practices are based upon specific protected classes.
IV. Defining Protected Classes
Protected classes encompass groups of individuals shielded from discrimination under governmental statutes. Washington State explicitly delineates these classes under the WLAD, recognizing various categories within, inter alia, the realm of employment, including the following:
Victims of discrimination in violation of the WLAD may seek generous remedies. “Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in violation of … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination] shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.).” RCW 49.60.030(2).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the exploration of protected classes within Washington State’s employment discrimination laws highlights the state’s commitment to fostering a workplace environment rooted in equality and fairness. The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), a robust statute enacted in 1949, serves as a powerful safeguard against unjust treatment based on specific attributes.
In essence, the WLAD stands as a cornerstone in Washington State’s pursuit of equal opportunities, reinforcing the principles of fairness, justice, and non-discrimination in employment. As we navigate the complexities of the modern workplace, understanding and upholding the rights of protected classes are crucial steps towards creating a truly inclusive and equitable work environment in the Evergreen State.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
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.
Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination’s antiretaliation provision, RCW 49.60.210, is there a cause of action for job applicants who claim a prospective employer refused to hire them in retaliation for prior opposition to discrimination against a different employer? 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.)
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.
The relevant WLAD antiretaliation provision is as follows:
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.
RCW 49.60.210(1) (emphasis added). The term “employer” is vague.
WLAD DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER
The WLAD definition of the term “employer” is found under RCW 49.60.040(11) and states as follows:
(11) “Employer” includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, who employs eight or more persons, and does not include any religious or sectarian organization not organized for private profit.
Plaintiff Zhu ultimately “prevailed on his WLAD antiretaliation claim and was awarded damages.” Id. at 507. The defendant (ESD 171) then filed a motion asking, inter alia, “that the district court certify to . . . [the Washington State Supreme Court] the question of RCW 49.60.210(1)’s scope.” Id. (hyperlink added). Accordingly, “the district court granted the motion in part and certified the following question regarding the scope of RCW 49.60.210(1) to . . . [the Washington State Supreme Court]:”
Does RCW 49.60.210(1) create a cause of action for job applicants who claim a prospective employer refused to hire them in retaliation for prior opposition to discrimination against a different employer?
Zhu, 404 P.3d at 507 (internal quotation marks omitted) (hyperlink added).
DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER NOT LIMITED TO CURRENT EMPLOYER
The Washington State Supreme Court answered the certified question in Zhu affirmatively and addressed the plain language and scope of WLAD’s antiretaliation provision, WLAD’s definition of employer, and the policy of WLAD.
The Court ultimately held that “[i]n accordance with the plain language of the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Chapter 49.60 RCW, retaliatory discrimination against job applicants by prospective employers is prohibited by RCW 49.60.210(1)”; therefore, Zhu stated a valid cause of action based on his claim of unlawful retaliation. SeeZhu, 404 P.3d at 506 (hyperlinks added).
During its analysis, the Court also expounded on WLAD’s definition of the term “employer” as follows:
[The WLAD definition of employer (RCW 49.60.040(11))] clearly includes prospective employers, and nothing about the statutory context indicates that ‘any employer’ means something different for purposes of the antiretaliation statute than it does for the purposes of the rest of WLAD.
Zhu, 404 P.3d at 509 (emphasis and hyperlink added).
CONCLUSION
Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination’s antiretaliation provision, RCW 49.60.210, there is a cause of action for job applicants who claim a prospective employer refused to hire them in retaliation for prior opposition to discrimination against a different employer.
READ MORE
We invite you to read more of our blog articles about this topic:
*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.
(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.)
A “statute of limitations” is “[a] law that bars claims after a specified period; specif., a statute establishing a time limit for suing in a civil case, based on the date when the claim accrued (as when the injury occurred or was discovered.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1451 (Deluxe 8th ed. 2004). “The purpose of such a statute is to require diligent prosecution of known claims, thereby providing finality and predictability in legal affairs and ensuring that claims will be resolved while evidence is reasonably available and fresh.” Id. The Washington State statute concerning limitation of actions is contained under chapter 4.16 RCW.
Actions limited to three years. Within three years:
* * *
(2) An action for taking, detaining, or injuring personal property, including an action for the specific recovery thereof, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another not hereinafter enumerated;
Lewis, 36 Wn.App. at 609, 676 P.2d 545 (hyperlink to external website and emphasis added).
“Further support for applying the 3-year statute [to the WLAD] is found in the Legislature’s directive that RCW 49.60 be liberally construed.” Id. (citing Franklin County Sheriff’s Office v. Sellers, 97 Wash.2d 317, 334, 646 P.2d 113 (1982), cert. denied, — U.S. —-, 103 S.Ct. 730, 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983); Fahn v. Cowlitz County, 93 Wash.2d 368, 374, 610 P.2d 857 (1980)) (hyperlink to external website added).
WARNING
It can be a complicated and difficult process to determine when the statute of limitations begins to run for individual WLAD claims, and an improper determination can bar both claims for prospective lawsuits and administrative relief.
Therefore, the reader is strongly encouraged to use the assistance of legal counsel to determine when the statute of limitations (or jurisdictional time limitation for administrative agencies) begins to run for individual WLAD claims — please see our DISCLAIMER.
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.
Employees in Washington State that use employment-discrimination hotlines to submit complaints to their employers sometimes experience consequent retaliation by their employers. It’s not uncommon. Such employees who thereafter pursue associated claims of unlawful retaliation against their employers soon realize the importance of their hotline complaints — particularly, the wording.
Under Washington State unlawful-retaliation laws, should employees reporting employment discrimination via employment-discrimination hotlines specify their protected status (or statuses), when they might rely on those reports to pursue prospective, associated claims of unlawful-retaliation against their employers? Here’s my point of view.
(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)
Advertisement
WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD) — PROTECTED STATUSES
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.
(*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog – an external website.)
UNLAWFUL RETALIATION (WA STATE)
“The WLAD 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) (hyperlink added).
THE PRIMA FACIE CASE
“To establish a prima facie* retaliation case, a plaintiff must show that[:]
(3) there is a causal link between the activity and the adverse action.
Id. at 753-54 (citing Short v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 169 Wn.App. 188, 205, 279 P.3d 902 (2012)) (paragraph formatting added) (emphasis added). The first element–statutorily protected activity–is at issue for purposes of this article.
(*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog – an external website.)
ELEMENT #1: STUTORILY PROTECTED ACTIVITY
One way “[a]n employee engages in WLAD-protected activity [is] when … [the employee] opposes employment practices forbidden by antidiscrimination law or other practices that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory.” Id. at 754 (citing Short, 169 Wn.App. at 205).
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.” Alonso, 178 Wn.App. at 754 (referencing Graves v. Dep’t of Game, 76 Wn.App. 705, 712, 887 P.2d 424 (1994)) (emphasis and hyperlink added).
Advertisement
EXAMPLE: ALONSO v. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LLC (EMPLOYMENT-DISCRIMINATION HOTLINES)
In Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC, “Alonso sued his employer, Qwest Communications Company LLC, and his supervisor for discrimination [based on Alonso’s combat-veteran, disabled-person, and Mexican-American statuses.]” Id. at 734. “[T]he superior court granted Qwest summary judgment dismissal of Alonso’s complaint.” Id. “Alonso appeal[ed], arguing that he provided sufficient evidence to establish [a] prima facie discrimination claim[ ] for[, inter alia,] … unlawful retaliation.” Id.
While working for Qwest, Alonso “used a company hotline to make a general complaint about corruption, mistreatment, and vulgar language against both his supervisor and another employee.” Id. at 754 (emphasis added). However, Alonso “did not express that his complaints were in response to harassment based on any protected status.” Id. (emphasis and hyperlink added).
Accordingly, “[t]he Court [of Appeals] initially evaluated whether Alonso met the first element of an unlawful retaliation claim — that he participated in protected activity.” Id. The court held that Alonso failed to sufficiently establish a prima facie retaliation case, because he did not phone the hotline to report discrimination against him based on a protected class. Id. at 754 (hyperlink added). Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of his unlawful retaliation claim. Id. at 754-55.
CONCLUSION
Under Washington State unlawful-retaliation laws, I believe employees electing to report employment discrimination–via employer hotlines–should seriously consider specifying their relevant protected status(es) if they might rely on those reports to prosecute associated, prospective unlawful-retaliation claims. IMPORTANT: In any event, NO content in this article, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney.
READ MORE OF OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our blog articles about this topic:
*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.
Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, how does one prove the “causal-link” element when pursuing a claim of unlawful retaliation? 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
UNLAWFUL RETALIATION (WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION)
(3) a causal link between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action.
Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403, 411, 430 P.3d 229 (2018) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis, paragraphs, and hyperlinks added).
*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog – an external website.
ELEMENT #3: PROVING THE CAUSAL LINK
“Ordinarily, proof of the employer’s motivation must be shown by circumstantial evidence because the employer is not apt to announce retaliation as his motive.” Kahn v. Salerno, 90 Wn. App. 110, 130-31, 951 P.2d 321, review denied, 136 Wn.2d 1016 (1998) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, there are two typical methods of proving a causal link between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action.
METHOD #1 (Proximity & Performance): “Proximity in time between the adverse action and the protected activity, coupled with evidence of satisfactory work performance and supervisory evaluations suggests an improper motive.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
METHOD #2 (Knowledge & Discharge): “[I]f the employee establishes that he or she participated in an opposition activity, the employer knew of the opposition activity, and he or she was discharged, then a rebuttable presumption is created in favor of the employee that precludes … [the court] from dismissing the employee’s case.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
READ MORE OF OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our blog articles about this topic:
*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.
Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), how do courts apply the Functionally-Similar Test when addressing claims of unlawful retaliation? 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: THE ANTIRETALIATION PROVISION
The relevant WLAD antiretaliation provision is found under RCW 49.60.210(1), and it states as follows:
(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.
RCW 49.60.210(1) (emphasis added). That provision does not clearly establish what the phrase “other person” means. Washington courts apply the Functionally-Similar Test to, inter alia, determine what “other persons” are subject to WLAD’s antiretaliation provision.
Such discriminatory actions include those subject to WLAD’s antiretaliation provision. Accordingly, “[t]he [antiretaliation] section, read as a whole, is directed at entities functionally similar to employers who discriminate by engaging in conduct similar to discharging or expelling a person who has opposed practices forbidden by RCW 49.60.” Malo v. Alaska Trawl Fisheries, Inc., 92 Wn.app. at 930 (emphasis and hyperlink added).
Thus, under the Functionally-Similar Test, a defendant might be held personally liable for discriminatory actions under the Washington Law Against Discrimination–including the antiretaliation provision–if that defendant satisfies any one or more of the following:
» Employs the plaintiff;
» Manages the plaintiff;
» Supervises the plaintiff;
» Is in a position to discharge the plaintiff;
» Is in a position to expel the plaintiff;
»Is in a position to expel plaintiff from membership in any organization.
See id. at 930-31.
EXAMPLE: MALO v. ALASKA TRAWL FISHERIES, INC.
In Malo v. Alaska Trawl Fisheries, Inc., 92 Wn.app. 927, 930, 965 P.2d 1124 (1998), plaintiff Malo sued defendants Alaska Trawl Fisheries and its employee Captain Campbell, “alleging they had taken action against him in retaliation for his opposition to sexual harassment on board the vessel.” Malo, 92 Wn.app. at 928. The trial court dismissed Malo’s claims on summary judgment. Malo appealed.
The Court of Appeals found that Captain Campbell “did not employ, manage or supervise Malo”; and Campbell “was not in a position to discharge Malo or to expel him from membership in any organization.” Id. at 930. Consequently, Campbell did not pass the Functionally-Similar Test, and the court Court of Appeals found that “[b]ecause RCW 49.60.210 does not create personal and individual liability for co-workers, the trial court did not err in dismissing Malo’s claim against Campbell under that statute.” Id. at 930-31 (hyperlink added).
» Employs the plaintiff;
» Manages the plaintiff;
» Supervises the plaintiff;
» Is in a position to discharge the plaintiff;
» Is in a position to expel the plaintiff;
»Is in a position to expel plaintiff from membership in any organization.
READ MORE ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our blog articles concerning this topic:
*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.
Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, how does one establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge? 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
RETALIATORY DISCHARGE (WA STATE): THE PRIMA FACIE CASE
[1] … Davis, an African American, was hired as a salesman for West One in February 2005 and terminated in July 2005.
[2] During the course of his five-month employment, Mr. Davis experienced racially charged comments in the workplace.
[3] On one occasion, West One manager and Mr. Davis’s supervisor … asked Mr. Davis if he knew “why blacks have a day off on Martin Luther King Day?” When Mr. Davis said he did not know, … [his supervisor] responded, “Because they shot and killed his black ass.” Mr. Davis told … [his supervisor] the comment was inappropriate and not to make such a comment again.
[4] Another time, … [Mr. Davis’ supervisor] stated, “Blacks on the eastside, Mexicans on the west; hell I don’t know.” Mr. Davis was offended, and told … [his supervisor] so.
[5] A third incident involved … [Mr. Davis’ supervisor] walking by Mr. Davis’s desk, kicking it and remarking, “What’s up, bitc[#].” Mr. Davis was offended, regarding “bitc[#]” as a derogatory term some African American men use to refer to each other. Mr. Davis again told … [his supervisor] he was offended.
[6] [A] [f]ellow sales employee … also made comments that Mr. Davis found racially offensive. On an occasion when Mr. Davis had customers in the finance office and his telephone rang, … [the co-worker] stopped him from answering stating, “Hey, Buckwheat, you can’t get that call.” Mr. Davis was offended and asked … [the co-worker] to refer to him by name.
…
[7] Mr. Davis complained to West One Human Resources about … [his co-worker’s] “Buckwheat” comment. No disciplinary action was taken.
[8] At a subsequent staff meeting, [Mr. Davis’ supervisor] discussed generally with the entire staff that, “no use of any type of insensitive name, nickname or not, would be tolerated.”
[9] Because no action had been taken against … [Mr. Davis’ co-worker] and because he regarded … [his supervisor] as “the worst offender of racial discrimination,” Mr. Davis did not complain again.
Id. at 453-54 (internal citations omitted).
In the Court of Appeals, “Mr. Davis claim[ed] he was fired for reporting hostile work environment.” Id. at 460 (hyperlink added). The Court considered, inter alia, the foregoing facts and found, in part, as follows:
This is a protected activity covered by statute and his termination qualifies as an adverse employment action. It is unclear if retaliation was a substantial motive behind the termination. The evidence presented at summary judgment would support a finding either way on the causation issue. This is a jury question.
Id. (internal citations omitted). Thus, the Court determined that plaintiff Davis established a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge and–after applying the McDonnel Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework–concluded that “Summary judgment dismissal of Mr. Davis’s … claim was not appropriate.” Id. at 461.
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.
(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.)
(3) a causal link between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action.
Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403, 411, 430 P.3d 229 (2018) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis, paragraphs, and hyperlinks added).
*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog – an external website.
ELEMENT #2: ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION
The WA State Supreme Court, in majority, has not clearly defined the term “adverse employment action.” However, Federal law and the United States Supreme Court offer some useful guidance on the issue.
-Federal Law
The term “adverse employment action” is undefined under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Accordingly, “the question of what constitutes an adverse employment action has received significant attention from the federal courts, which have not reached a consensus on the issue.” Islamic Society of Fire Department Personnel v. City of New York, 205 F.Supp.2d 75, 82 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (internal citation omitted).
“Some courts, such as the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, have held that an ‘adverse employment action’ relates only to ‘ultimate employment actions,’ such as hiring, firing, promotions and demotions.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
-Ninth Circuit
However, the Ninth Circuit has adopted the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission‘s broad definition which takes an “expansive view” of what may be considered an adverse employment action. Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000).
-U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the Ninth Circuit’s general approach to this question in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 2409 (2006), and held that an adverse employment action must be harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of unlawful conduct by the employer.
CONCLUSION
Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, the definition of “adverse employment action” can be derived from Ninth Circuit caselaw to mean an employment action that is harmful to the point that it could deter a reasonable employee “from making or supporting a charge or unlawful conduct by the employer.”
READ MORE ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our blog articles concerning this topic:
*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.
As an employment attorney in Washington State, I often litigate claims on behalf of employee-plaintiffs based on several common employment discrimination laws. Here are the top 3 employment discrimination laws that I litigate in Washington State . . .
(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)
Advertisement
#3 — THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 (§ 1981)
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) is a federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981. A plaintiff cannot state a claim under Section 1981 unless he has (or would have) rights under the existing (or proposed) contract that he wishes ‘to make and enforce.’” See Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470, 479-80 (2006). And the employment-at-will relationship is a contract for Section 1981 purposes.
Section 1981 is also known as “Equal rights under the law” and it states as follows:
(a) STATEMENT OF EQUAL RIGHTS
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) “MAKE AND ENFORCE CONTRACTS” DEFINED
For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
(c) PROTECTION AGAINST IMPAIRMENT
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter, “Title VII”) “makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex[;] … makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit[;] … and requires that employers reasonably accommodate applicants’ and employees’ sincerely held religious practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.” U.S. EEOC Website (emphasis added).
Two other federal anti-discrimination laws, inter alia, broaden the protected classes, as follows:
(1) Age Discrimination In Employment Act (ADEA) which protects people who are 40 or older from both discrimination on account of age and unlawful retaliation against a person “because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit”; and
(2) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that prohibits discrimination and unlawful retaliation against a qualified person with a disability. The ADA also “makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.” Further, the ADA requires that “employers reasonably accommodate the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.”
It is also an unfair practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee, because the employee complained about job discrimination or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit. See id.
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.
(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.)
(3) a causal link between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action.
Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403, 411, 430 P.3d 229 (2018) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis, paragraphs, and hyperlinks added).
*NOTE: The link will take the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog – an external website.
ELEMENT #1 — STATUTORILY PROTECTED ACTIVITY
The first element of the prima facie case requires plaintiffs to establish that they “engaged in a statutorily protected activity.” The meaning of this requirement can be found under the anti-retaliation section of the WLAD statute, as follows:
RCW 49.60.210
Unfair practices—Discrimination against person opposing unfair practice—Retaliation against whistleblower.
(1) It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by this chapter, or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter.
(2) It is an unfair practice for a government agency or government manager or supervisor to retaliate against a whistleblower as defined in chapter 42.40 RCW.
(3) It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, government agency, government manager, or government supervisor to discharge, expel, discriminate, or otherwise retaliate against an individual assisting with an office of fraud and accountability investigation under RCW 74.04.012, unless the individual has willfully disregarded the truth in providing information to the office.
Thus, pursuant to section one, above, statutorily protected activity includes: (1) opposing any practices forbidden by WLAD, or (2) filing a charge, testifying, or assisting in any proceeding under WLAD.
“Violation of this provision [(i.e., RCW 49.60.210)] supports a retaliation claim.” Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 12 Wn.App.2d 557, 570 (Div. 2 2020), review denied, 468 P.3d 616 (2020) (referencing Cornwell, 192 Wn.2d at 411).
READ MORE
We invite you to read more of our blog articles concerning this topic:
*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.
(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
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.
“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)).
*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.
(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).
READ MORE ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our blog articles concerning this topic:
*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.
(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.)
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)).
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.
(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.
READ MORE ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our blog articles concerning this topic:
*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.
(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) (citingAllison 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).
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.
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).
READ MORE ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our blog articles concerning this topic:
*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.
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):
(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
#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.
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.
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.
