(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
DUTY TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS (EMPLOYERS)
When an employer’s accommodation is ineffective, the employee’s corresponding duty to communicate mandates: “If the employee does not communicate to the employer that an accommodation was not effective, he or she cannot maintain a failure to accommodate claim.” Id. at 587 (internal citation omitted) (emphasis and hyperlinks added). The basis for this duty is that “an employer must be able to ascertain whether its efforts at accommodation have been effective, and therefore an employee has a duty to communicate to the employer whether the accommodation was effective.” Id. at 586-87 (citing Frisino v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 160 Wn.App. 765, 783, 249 P.3d 1044 (2011)) (hyperlinks added).
EXAMPLE: MACKEY v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC.
In Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., “Mackey began working at Home Depot[] … in 2006.” Id. at 564. “During her employment, Mackey suffered from depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and degenerative disc disease. She asked for accommodations related to all these conditions.” Id.
home depot’s DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE (EMPLOYER)
“Home Depot accommodated Mackey’s degenerative disc disease by allowing [her] … to have other employees do any required lifting.” Id. at 586.
mackey’s FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE CLAIM
“Home Depot [eventually] terminated Mackey’s employment after an investigation determined that she had been violating company policies regarding discounts on customer orders.” Id. at 563. “Mackey asserted claims for[, inter alia,] failure to reasonably accommodate her physical disability.” Id. “Mackey argue[d] that [Home Depot’s disability] … accommodation was unreasonable because it required her to seek out the help of other employees and tell them about her disability before completing the lifting tasks assigned to her.” Id.
mackey’s DUTY TO COMMUNICATE (EMPLOYEE)
The employer defended by asserting, “Mackey failed to notify Home Depot that the [disability] accommodation it provided to her was insufficient or unreasonable.” Id. at 586. The Court also noted: “Mackey admitted that she never complained to Home Depot that she did not have someone to lift for her or that the accommodation was not adequate.” Id. at 587.
THE COURT’S HOLDING
The Washington State Court of Appeals held, “[T]he trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on Mackey’s failure to reasonably accommodate claim because Mackey never notified Home Depot that the accommodation it provided was ineffective or unreasonable.” Id. at 564.
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: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
THE WASHINGTON STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Created by the Washington State Legislature in 1949, the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) is a key state agency tasked with both administering and enforcing the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). See Washington State Human Rights Commission Website, https://www.hum.wa.gov/about-us* (last visited August 21, 2024). Its “mission … is to eliminate and prevent discrimination in Washington State through the fair application of the law, efficient use of resources, and establishment of productive partnerships in the community.” Id.
WAC 162-16-250
Discrimination because of marital status.
(1) General rule. It is an unfair practice to discriminate against an employee or job applicant because of marital status. Examples of unfair practices include, but are not limited to:
(a) Refusing to hire a single or divorced applicant because of a presumption that “married persons are more stable.”
(b) Refusing to promote a married employee because of a presumption that he or she “will be less willing to work late and travel.”
WAC 162-16-250(1)* (hyperlinks and paragraph formatting added).
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE
There are exceptions to the general rule, as follows:
WAC 162-16-250
Discrimination because of marital status.
(a) If a bona fide occupational qualification applies (please see WAC 162-16-240*).
(b) If an employer is enforcing a documented conflict of interest policy limiting employment opportunities on the basis of marital status:
(i) Where one spouse would have the authority or practical power to supervise, appoint, remove, or discipline the other;
(ii) Where one spouse would be responsible for auditing the work of the other;
(iii) Where other circumstances exist which would place the spouses in a situation of actual or reasonably foreseeable conflict between the employer’s interest and their own; or
(iv) Where, in order to avoid the reality or appearance of improper influence or favor, or to protect its confidentiality, the employer must limit the employment of close relatives of policy level officers of customers, competitors, regulatory agencies, or others with whom the employer deals.
WAC 162-16-250(2)* (hyperlinks and paragraph formatting added).
WLAD REMEDIES
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 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)*.
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 (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.
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.
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.
FAQ: What qualifies as wrongful termination in Washington?
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
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
• 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.
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.
Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), what is the definition of “color” when pursing 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
Defining “Color” Under Washington Law
Within the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, the term “color” is recognized as a distinct protected characteristic. Although often discussed alongside race, “color” has its own legal meaning and plays an important role in identifying and addressing discriminatory conduct. In general terms, “color” refers to the pigmentation, complexion, or skin tone of an individual.
Distinction Between Color and Race
While race and color are closely related, they are not interchangeable under the law. Race typically refers to broader social or ethnic classifications, whereas color focuses specifically on the shade or tone of a person’s skin. This distinction is significant because discrimination can occur between individuals of the same race based on differences in complexion.
For example, unfavorable treatment of a darker-skinned individual compared to a lighter-skinned individual of the same racial background may constitute unlawful discrimination based on color. Recognizing this nuance allows the law to address more subtle forms of bias that might otherwise go unremedied.
How Color Discrimination Appears in Practice
Color discrimination can arise in many of the same contexts covered by the WLAD, including employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit/insurance transactions. In the workplace, it may involve hiring decisions, promotions, pay disparities, or workplace harassment tied to an individual’s skin tone. In housing, it could manifest as differential treatment in renting or selling property based on complexion.
Importantly, color discrimination is not limited to overt or explicit actions. It may also include patterns of behavior, implicit bias, or policies that disproportionately affect individuals with certain skin tones. As a result, both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence may be relevant in evaluating such claims.
Legal Framework and Enforcement
Claims of discrimination based on color are evaluated under the same general framework as other protected classes under the WLAD. A complainant must typically show that they were treated differently in a context covered by the statute and that their color was a motivating factor in that treatment.
The Washington State Human Rights Commission investigates such claims, assessing whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination. If a violation is established, remedies may include corrective action, damages, policy changes, or other relief designed to address the harm and prevent future misconduct.
Conclusion
Recognizing “color” as an independent protected characteristic under the WLAD, RCW 49.60, strengthens the reach of Washington’s anti-discrimination law. It ensures that individuals are protected not only from broad racial bias but also from unequal treatment based on differences in skin tone—whether across or within racial groups.
For the public, this underscores that the law addresses subtle as well as overt forms of discrimination. For legal practitioners, it highlights the need to evaluate claims with precision, paying close attention to how complexion-based bias may factor into a given set of facts. By expressly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of color, Washington law provides a more complete framework for identifying, addressing, and preventing inequity in everyday life.
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.
Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, how does one establish a disability-based hostile work environment case via circumstantial evidence? Here’s my point of view.
(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)
Advertisement
THE PRIMA FACIE CASE: DISABILITY-BASED HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT VIA CIRCUMSTANIAL EVIDENCE
To establish a disability-based hostile work environment case via circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by proving:
(1) that the plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the antidiscrimination statute[, WLAD],
To establish that the harassment was unwelcome, “the plaintiff must show that he or she ‘did not solicit or incite it’ and viewed it as ‘undesirable or offensive.'” Id. (citing Glasgow v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 406, 693, P.2d 708 (Wash. 1985)) (hyperlink added).
THIRD ELEMENT (BECAUSE OF DISABILITY)
To establish that the harassment was “because of disability,” requires “[t]hat the disability of the plaintiff-employee be the motivating factor for the unlawful discrimination.” Id. at 46 (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406, 693 P.2d 708)) (alteration in original). This element requires a nexus between the specific harassing conduct and the particular injury or disability. Id.
FOURTH ELEMENT (TERMS & CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT)
To establish that the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, “the harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id. at (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406, 693 P.2d 708)).
“[A] satisfactory finding on this element should indicate “that the conduct or language complained of was so offensive or pervasive that it could reasonably be expected to alter the conditions of plaintiff’s employment.'” Id. (citing 6A WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CIVIL 330.23, at 240) (alteration in original).
FIFTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO EMPLOYER)
To impute harassment to an employer, “the jury must find either that[:]
(1) an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participate[d] in the harassment or that
(2) the employer … authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonably prompt adequate corrective action.”
Id. at 47 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (second alteration in original) (paragraph formatting added).
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 are the elements of Disparate Treatment 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 Disparate Treatment in WA State?
See Marin v. King County*, 194 Wn.App. 795, 808-09 (Wash.App. Div. 1 2016), review denied, 186 Wash.2d 1028, 385 P.3d 124 (Table) (Wash. 2016).
WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD) — DISPARATE TREATMENT — Generally
Under the WLAD, disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that “occurs when an employer treats some people less favorably than others because of race, color, religion, sex, [disability], [age], or other protected status.” Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company*, LLC, 178 Wn.App. 734, 743 (Div. 2 2013) (citing Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co., 162 Wn.2d 340, 354 n. 7, 172 P.3d 688 (2007)) (hyperlinks added).
THE “ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION” ELEMENT
Adverse employment action “means ‘a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.'” Id.* at 808 (citing Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998)).
THE “REASONABLE INFERENCE OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION” ELEMENT
Employment-discrimination plaintiffs often establish this element by using similarly situated, nonprotected co-workers for comparison. Such “[s]imilarly situated employees must have the same supervisor, be subject to the same standards, and have engaged in the same conduct.” Id.* at 810 (citing Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wn.App. 454, 475 n.16, 98 P.3d 827 (2004); see also Clark v. Runyon, 218 F.3d 915, 918 (8th Cir. 2000)).
ELEMENTS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE But VARY BASED ON RELEVANT FACTS
“The elements of a prima facie case for disparate treatment based on protected status are not absolute but vary based on the relevant facts.” Marin*, 194 Wn.App. at 808 (citing Grimwood v. Univ. of Puget Sound, Inc., 110 Wn.2d 355, 362-63, 753 P.2d 517 (1988)).
WLAD REMEDIES
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)*.
FAQ: Can you prove employment discrimination without direct evidence?
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
Can you prove employment discrimination without direct evidence?
STEP 1*: The “plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, which creates a presumption of discrimination.” Scrivener v. Clark College*, 181 Wn.2d 439, 446, 334 P.3d 541, (2014) (citing Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 149-50; Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483, 490, 859 P.2d 26, 865 P.2d 507 (1993)) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis & hyperlink added).
STEP 3*: “[I]f the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence showing that the defendant’s alleged nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action was a pretext*.” Id.* (internal citations omitted) (emphasis & hyperlink added).
