Washington Law Against Discrimination Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

May 21, 2026May 21, 2026

WLAD: Who Counts As an Employer

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), who counts as an employer for purposes of pursuing viable claims of employment discrimination? Here’s my point of view.

IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.

Advertisement

Who Counts as an “Employer” Under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination?

Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) is a powerful statute designed to protect, among other things, employees from discrimination in the workplace based on race, sex, religion, disability, and other protected characteristics. A key question often arises: who exactly is considered an “employer” under this law? Understanding this is crucial for both workers seeking protection and businesses/entities aiming to comply.

WLAD Definition of Employer

The WLAD defines the terms “employer” and “person” 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.

(19) “Person” includes one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, organizations, corporations, cooperatives, legal representatives, trustees and receivers, or any group of persons; it includes any owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, agent, or employee, whether one or more natural persons; and further includes any political or civil subdivisions of the state and any agency or instrumentality of the state or of any political or civil subdivision thereof.

RCW 49.60.040(11), (19)* (emphasis added).

Meaning of Employer

Thus, under the WLAD, an “employer” is defined broadly, and the statute includes:

• Any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly – This means that it’s not only the company or organization itself that can be liable, but also individuals or entities making employment decisions on the employer’s behalf. For example, human resources managers, corporate officers, and staffing agencies might fall under this umbrella if they influence hiring, firing, or workplace conditions.

• Entities employing 8 or more people – WLAD protections generally apply to businesses, organizations, and entities that have a minimum workforce of eight employees. This threshold matters: small businesses or entities with fewer than eight employees are typically outside the WLADs reach.

• Exemptions for certain religious organizations – The statute specifically excludes religious or sectarian organizations not organized for private profit. For example, in practical terms, a nonprofit church or religious charity acting in a ministerial or faith-based capacity may not be treated as an “employer” for WLAD purposes, though this exemption can be nuanced depending on how secular versus religious the roles in question are. Talk to an attorney to learn more and review our Disclaimer.

See RCW 49.60.040(11).

Implications

For employees, understanding who counts as an employer helps identify the correct party to hold accountable in cases of discrimination. For legal professionals advising clients, it’s essential to consider both direct and indirect actors, as liability can extend beyond the traditional business owner. Additionally, knowing the eight-employee threshold and the religious organization exception can prevent misunderstandings about whether the law applies.

In short, WLAD casts a wide net, ensuring that most workplaces in Washington are covered, while carving out specific, intentional exceptions. Employers subject to the WLAD should be mindful that both their actions and those of anyone acting on their behalf can trigger liability under the law.

LEARN MORE

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

–gw

April 25, 2026April 30, 2026

What Qualifies as Wrongful Termination in Washington?

Advertisement

What qualifies as wrongful termination in Washington?

answer:

The terms “wrongful termination” and “wrongful discharge” are synonymous in Washington State and are typically evaluated within the scope of the “at-will” doctrine (hereinafter, “Doctrine”); Washington has been an “at-will” employment state since at least 1928. Under this doctrine, an employer can terminate an at-will employee for any reason—whether it’s no reason at all, a legitimate reason, or even an unethical one—without worrying about legal repercussions. Likewise, unless there is a contract that specifies different terms, employees have the unrestricted right to leave their job at any time (i.e., at will). However, the following three recognized exceptions to the general at-will employment doctrine qualify as wrongful termination in Washington:

(1) The Statutory Exception;

(2) The Judicial Exception; and

(3) The Contractual Exception.

(1) THE STATUTORY EXCEPTION

“First, both Congress and the Washington State Legislature have modified the employment at-will doctrine by limiting employers’ rights to discharge employees.” Ford v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 146 Wn.2d 146, 153, 43 P.3d 1223, (Wash. 2002) (citing National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (1994); Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)* (1994); chapter 49.60* RCW (Washington’s law against discrimination); see also chapter 49.12* RCW (prohibiting discharge of employees for testifying in investigations regarding labor conditions, worker earnings, or sex discrimination); RCW 49.44.090* (prohibiting discharge of employee for being age 40 and over)).

These statutory laws provide an exception to the at-will doctrine that protects the employee’s rights and limits the employer’s ability to discharge an employee at-will.

(2) THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION

Second, Washington courts “have recognized a narrow public-policy exception to an employer’s right to discharge an employee”; this exception is commonly known as “wrongful termination in violation of public policy*.” Id. (referencing Smith v. Bates Technical Coll., 139 Wash.2d 793, 991 P.2d 1135 (2000) (public policy exception to “for-cause” employees); Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931, 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (discharge of armored truck driver who abandoned post to prevent murder violated public policy)).

“Under this exception, an employer does not have the right to discharge an employee when the termination would frustrate a clear manifestation of public policy.” Id. “By recognizing this public policy exception, … [Washington State Supreme Court has] expressed its unwillingness to shield an employer’s action which otherwise frustrates a clear manifestation of public policy.” Id. at 154 (internal quotation marks omitted).

(3) THE CONTRACTUAL EXCEPTION

“Third, employers and employees can contractually modify the at-will employment relationship, eschewing the common law rule in favor of negotiated rights and liabilities.” Id. at 154 (internal citation omitted). “An employer can bargain away its right to discharge an employee without cause by contracting not to do so.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

“The law governing this exception is not a species of the employment at-will doctrine; it is the law of contracts. Therefore, the law of contracts governs an injured party’s right to recover damages under this exception.” Id. at 155 (internal citation omitted). “Unlike a wrongful discharge, a breach of contract is neither immoral nor wrongful; it is simply a broken promise.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

Did you resign from your job?

Even if you resigned from your job, you might still be able to claim wrongful termination in Washington. Take our Constructive Discharge Test (video) to learn more:

Read Our Related Articles

»Constructive Discharge in WA State*

»Effective Date For Constructive Discharge (WA State)

»Retaliatory Discharge (WA State)

»The Prima Facie Case: Discriminatory Discharge

»WA State Torts: Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy*

»What is the Statute of Limitations for Wrongful Termination in WA?

»WLAD: The Discriminatory Discharge Provision*

*NOTE: This link will take you to our Williams Law Group Blog, an external website.

NEED HELP?

If you need legal assistance, 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.

April 9, 2026April 25, 2026

Personality Tests and Employment Discrimination

To what extent do personality tests used in job screenings create a risk of employment discrimination under Washington State law? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

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

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

Why These Tests Raise Red Flags

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

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

• “Adaptability” metrics can disadvantage neurodivergent candidates.

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

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

Washington’s Broader Legal Standard

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

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

What Employers Should Be Doing (opinion)

To stay compliant, I believe Washington employers should:

• Audit any personality or behavioral test for disparate impact.

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

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

• Avoid blanket reliance on automated scoring or algorithmic rankings.

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

What Employees Should Know

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

Conclusion

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