Category: Washington Law Against Discrimination

Posted on

What are the elements of Disparate Impact in WA State?

What are the elements of Disparate Impact in WA State?
FAQ: What are the elements of Disparate Impact 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 Impact in WA State?

answer:

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

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

(1) a facially neutral employment practice

(2) falls more harshly on a protected class.

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

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)*.

Read Our Related Articles

» Definition of Prima Facie Case*

» Disparate Impact

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

» Origin of the Disparate Impact Claim

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Impact

» What is WA State’s law against employment discrimination?

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

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.

Posted on

Religious Affiliation Disclosure

Religious Affiliation Disclosure

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, may an employer require religious affiliation disclosure by employees? 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: RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION DISCLOSURE (RCW 49.60.208)

The relevant law can be found under RCW 49.60.208, and it states as follows:

Unfair practice—Religious affiliation disclosure.

It is an unfair practice for an employer to:

(1) Require an employee to disclose his or her sincerely held religious affiliation or beliefs, unless the disclosure is for the purpose of providing a religious accommodation at the request of the employee; or

(2) Require or authorize an employee to disclose information about the religious affiliation of another employee, unless the individual whose religious affiliation will be disclosed

(a) expressly consents to the disclosure, and

(b) has knowledge of the purpose for the disclosure.

Id. (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

EXCEPTION — RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION

Under this exception, an employer may require an employee to disclose their “sincerely held religious affiliation or beliefs” if it is for the purpose of providing an employee-requested religious accommodation. Read more about this topic by viewing our article: Failure to Accommodate Religious Practices.

EXCEPTION — BOTH EXPRESS CONSENT AND KNOWLEDGE OF PURPOSE

Under an additional exception, an employer may either authorize or require an employee (“Revealing Employee”) to reveal information about another employee’s (“Subject Employee’s”) religious affiliation if the Subject Employee both expressly consents to the disclosure and has knowledge of the reason for the revelation.

REMEDIES

Under the WLAD, “[a]ny 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).

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Failure to Accommodate Religious Practices

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.

Posted on

Proving Discrimination: The Direct-Evidence Method

Proving Discrimination: The Direct-Evidence Method

Under Washington State laws, what is the direct-evidence method (hereinafter, “Direct-Evidence Method”) of establishing a prima facie case 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




EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION — THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (2 OPTIONS)

In Washington State, “[a] plaintiff can establish a prima facie case [of employment discrimination] by either[:]

[1.] offering direct evidence of an employer’s discriminatory intent, or …

[2.] satisfying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test* that gives rise to an inference of discrimination.

Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC*, 178 Wn.App 734, 743-44 (Div. 2 2013) (citing Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483, 491, 859 P.2d 26, 865 P.2d 507 (1993)) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added).

THE DIRECT-EVIDENCE METHOD

The Direct-Evidence Method has two elements. “[A] plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by providing direct evidence that[:]

(1) the defendant employer acted with a discriminatory motive and

(2) the discriminatory motivation was a significant or substantial factor in an employment decision.

Id.* at 744 (citing Kastanis, 122 Wn.2d at 491) (paragraph formatting, hyperlink, and emphasis added).

THE 2ND ELEMENT:  DISCRIMINATORY MOTIVATION WAS SIGNIFICANT/SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR

To satisfy the second element of the Direct-Evidence Method, the plaintiff–employee “must … [establish that] the discriminatory motive was a significant or substantial factor in an employment decision relating to … [plaintiff].” Id.* at 746 (referencing Kastanis, 122 Wn.2d at 491). This can be done by identifying associated adverse employment actions.

ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION

“An adverse employment action involves a change in employment conditions that is more than an inconvenience or alteration of one’s job responsibilities, such as reducing an employee’s workload and pay.” Id.* (citing Campbell v. State, 129 Wn.App. 10, 22, 118 P.3d 888 (2005), review denied, 157 Wn.2d 1002 (2006)). “A demotion or adverse transfer, or a hostile work environment, may also amount to an adverse employment action.” Id.* (citing Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wn.App. 454, 465, 98 P.3d 827 (2004), review denied, 154 Wn.2d 1007 (2005)) (hyperlink added).

EMPLOYER’S DISCRIMINATORY REMARKS GENERALLY CONSIDERED DIRECT EVIDENCE

Washington Courts “generally consider an employer’s discriminatory remarks to be direct evidence of discrimination.” Id.* (referencing Johnson v. Express Rent & Own, Inc., 113 Wn.App. 858, 862-63, 56 P.3d 567 (2002) (“reversing summary judgment based on supervisor’s ageist comments that plaintiff did not fit company’s image of a youthful, fit, ‘GQ’ looking mold”)).

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.

Posted on

Sexual Harassment Policy Requirements for Specific WA Employers

Sexual Harassment Policy Requirements for Specific WA Employers

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60, what are the sexual harassment and assault policy requirements for hotel, motel, retailer, and security guard entities, and property services contractors? 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




WA State’s Sexual Harassment and Assault Policy Requirements for Specific WA State Employers — Hotel, Motel, Retail, or Security Guard Entity, and Property Services Contractors

Washington State has long been at the forefront of promoting workplace equality and safety. One of the key provisions in this regard is RCW 49.60.515*, a statute within the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), which imposes specific responsibilities on the following employers–who employ an employee–to combat sexual harassment and assault:

» Hotel, Motel, Retail, and Security Guard Entities; and

» Property Services Contractors.

This provision aims to create safer work environments in sectors that may face heightened risks of such behaviors. Below is a breakdown of the law’s requirements and its impact on employers and employees.

1. Adopting a Sexual Harassment Policy (RCW 49.60.515(1)(a))

Under the law, every employer in the specified sectors is required to adopt a comprehensive sexual harassment policy. This policy must explicitly address how sexual harassment will be prevented, identified, and responded to in the workplace. The inclusion of this policy is an essential step in setting clear standards of behavior and ensuring that employees are aware of their rights and responsibilities.

For employers, having a well-defined sexual harassment policy provides guidance on what constitutes inappropriate behavior and how to handle complaints. This policy serves as a preventative measure and a tool for addressing complaints effectively when they arise.

2. Mandatory Training for Employees and Management (RCW 49.60.515(1)(b))

One of the core requirements of this provision is the mandatory training for managers, supervisors, and employees. The training aims to:

•  Prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace

•  Prevent sexual discrimination

•  Educate employees about protections for those who report violations of state or federal laws, rules, or regulations

The training sessions ensure that employees at all levels are aware of the importance of maintaining a respectful and safe work environment. By providing this education, employers can foster a culture of accountability and respect. Additionally, the inclusion of protections for whistleblowers is essential for encouraging employees to report violations without fear of retaliation.

3. Resources for Employees (RCW 49.60.515(1)(c))

In addition to training, employers are required to provide their workforce with a list of resources for those who may experience or witness sexual harassment or assault. At a minimum, this resource list must include contact information for:

•  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

•  The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC)

•  Local advocacy groups focused on preventing sexual harassment and sexual assault

These resources are critical for providing employees with the support and guidance they need to address harassment issues, report incidents, or seek external help if necessary.

4. Panic Buttons for Employees (RCW 49.60.515(1)(d))

In an effort to further enhance the safety of workers in potentially vulnerable situations, the statute mandates that employers in the specified industries provide a panic button to each employee. This panic button is a critical tool for immediate assistance in emergencies, allowing workers to quickly signal for help if they feel threatened or are in danger of harassment or assault.

For employers with fewer than 50 employees, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries* (L&I) is tasked with providing additional guidance on how this requirement will be applied. This provision does not extend to contracted security guard companies licensed under chapter 18.170* RCW, which have separate regulations in place.

5. Reporting and Documentation Requirements for Property Services Contractors (RCW 49.60.515(2))

Property services contractors, including janitorial companies, must adhere to specific reporting requirements. These include submitting the following information to the L&I:

•  The date when the sexual harassment policy was adopted

•  The number of managers, supervisors, and employees who have completed the mandated training

•  The physical address of each work location where janitorial services are performed, along with details about the workforce and hours worked

These reporting measures ensure that contractors are in compliance with the law and provide valuable data for oversight. This information will be made available in aggregate form to the public, allowing for transparency and accountability.

6. Why This Law Matters

RCW 49.60.515* is designed to address specific vulnerabilities in industries where workers may be at higher risk of harassment or assault, such as hotels, motels, and retail spaces. By instituting preventive measures such as training, panic buttons, and clear policies, the law works to ensure that employees have the tools and protections needed to maintain a safe workplace.

Moreover, the law helps reinforce a broader commitment to workplace equality and safety in Washington State, which aligns with national efforts to curb sexual harassment and assault in the workplace.

7. the statutory provision — rcw 49.60.515

The relevant WLAD statutory provision states as follows:

RCW 49.60.515
Sexual harassment and assault policy—Adoption of by hotel, motel, retail, or security guard entity, or property services contractors—Requirements.

(1) Every hotel, motel, retail, or security guard entity, or property services contractor, who employs an employee, must:

(a) Adopt a sexual harassment policy;

(b) Provide mandatory training to the employer’s managers, supervisors, and employees to:

(i) Prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace;

(ii) Prevent sexual discrimination in the workplace; and

(iii) Educate the employer’s workforce regarding protection for employees who report violations of a state or federal law, rule, or regulation;

(c) Provide a list of resources for the employer’s employees to utilize. At a minimum, the resources must include contact information of the equal employment opportunity commission, the Washington state human rights commission, and local advocacy groups focused on preventing sexual harassment and sexual assault; and

(d) Provide a panic button to each employee. The department must publish advice and guidance for employers with fifty or fewer employees relating to this subsection (1)(d). This subsection (1)(d) does not apply to contracted security guard companies licensed under chapter 18.170* RCW.

(2)(a) A property services contractor shall submit the following to the department on a form or in a manner determined by the department:

(i) The date of adoption of the sexual harassment policy required in subsection (1)(a) of this section;

(ii) The number of managers, supervisors, and employees trained as required by subsection (1)(b) of this section; and

(iii) The physical address of the work location or locations at which janitorial services are provided by workers of the property services contractor, and for each location: (A) The total number of workers or contractors of the property services contractor who perform janitorial services; and (B) the total hours worked.

(b) The department must make aggregate data submitted as required in this subsection (2) available upon request.

(c) The department may adopt rules to implement this subsection (2).

(3) For the purposes of this section:

(a) “Department” means the department of labor and industries.

(b) “Employee” means an individual who spends a majority of her or his working hours alone, or whose primary work responsibility involves working without another coworker present, and who is employed by an employer as a janitor, security guard, hotel or motel housekeeper, or room service attendant.

(c) “Employer” means any person, association, partnership, property services contractor, or public or private corporation, whether for-profit or not, who employs one or more persons.

(d) “Panic button” means an emergency contact device carried by an employee by which the employee may summon immediate on-scene assistance from another worker, a security guard, or a representative of the employer.

(e) “Property services contractor” means any person or entity that employs workers: (i) To perform labor for another person to provide commercial janitorial services; or (ii) on behalf of an employer to provide commercial janitorial services. “Property services contractor” does not mean the employment security department or individuals who perform labor under an agreement for exchanging their own labor or services with each other, provided the work is performed on land owned or leased by the individuals.

(f) “Security guard” means an individual who is principally employed as, or typically referred to as, a security officer or guard, regardless of whether the individual is employed by a private security company or a single employer or whether the individual is required to be licensed under chapter 18.170* RCW.

(4)(a) Hotels and motels with sixty or more rooms must meet the requirements of this section by January 1, 2020.

(b) All other employers identified in subsection (1) of this section must meet the requirements of this section by January 1, 2021.

RCW 49.60.515* (emphasis added).

Conclusion

The implementation of RCW 49.60.515 represents a significant step forward in ensuring that employers in high-risk industries take proactive measures to prevent sexual harassment and assault. By requiring sexual harassment policies, training, resources, panic buttons, and regular reporting, this law aims to create safer, more equitable work environments across Washington State. Employers in the specified sectors must familiarize themselves with these requirements to ensure compliance and to create a culture of safety and respect within their organizations. For employees, this law serves as an important safeguard, providing them with the resources and support necessary to navigate and report harassment if it arises.

READ MORE

We invite you to read more of our related blog articles:

» Definition of Sex (WLAD)

» Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

» The Silenced No More Act (WA State)*

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

NEED HELP?

If you need legal help, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case; our law office litigates claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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.

Posted on

Liability for Killing or Injuring Dog Guide or Service Animal (WA State)

Liability for Killing or Injuring Dog Guide or Service Animal (WA State)

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, is there a provision concerning the killing or injuring of a dog guide or service animal? 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




WLAD — LIABILITY FOR KILLING OR INJURING DOG GUIDE OR SERVICE ANIMAL

In Washington State, the rights of individuals with disabilities are protected under a variety of laws, including those governing the treatment of dog guides and service animals. One key WLAD provision is RCW 49.60.370*, which outlines the penalties and remedies for the killing or injury of such animals.

Under this law, if a person negligently or maliciously kills or injures a dog guide or service animal, they are liable for a penalty of $1,000, which must be paid to the user of the animal. This penalty is in addition to any other civil or criminal penalties that may apply. Not only does this law provide financial compensation for the user of the animal, but it also enables the recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if legal action is required.

Importantly, RCW 49.60.370* clarifies that the Washington State Human Rights Commission has no duty to investigate incidents of negligent or malicious acts against a dog guide or service animal. This means that individuals seeking justice under this statute must take legal action themselves to pursue civil remedies.

THE BLACK-LETTER LAW — RCW 49.60.370

The relevant WLAD section states as follows:

RCW 49.60.370
Liability for killing or injuring dog guide or service animal—Penalty in addition to other remedies or penalties—Recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs—No duty to investigate.

(1) A person who negligently or maliciously kills or injures a dog guide or service animal is liable for a penalty of one thousand dollars, to be paid to the user of the animal. The penalty shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any other remedies or penalties, civil or criminal, provided by law.

(2) A user or owner of a dog guide or service animal, whose animal is negligently or maliciously injured or killed, is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in pursuing any civil remedy.

(3) The commission has no duty to investigate any negligent or malicious acts referred to under this section.

RCW 49.60.370* (hyperlinks added).

CONCLUSION

For employers, this law reinforces the need for a respectful and inclusive environment for employees who rely on service animals. It’s crucial that workplace policies support the safety and well-being of both employees and their service animals or guide dogs. In doing so, employers not only comply with the law but also foster a more inclusive and supportive workplace culture. By understanding and respecting the legal rights of employees with disabilities and their service animals and guide dogs, businesses can ensure they provide an environment that is safe, fair, and legally compliant.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Definition of Dog Guide (WLAD)

» Definition of Service Animal (WLAD)

» License Waiver for Dog Guide and Service Animals (WLAD)

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.

Posted on

Determining Pretext Comparators: The Disparate-Discipline Method

Determining Pretext Comparators: The Disparate-Discipline Method

Under Washington State laws, what is the Disparate-Discipline Method of determining pretext comparators when litigating a claim of wrongful discharge? 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 external 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




Wrongful Discharge — Determining Pretext Comparators — The Disparate-Discipline Method (WA State)

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”) “prohibits employers from discharging any employee on the basis of a protected characteristic[.]” Litvack v. Univ. of Wash, 546 P.3d 1068, 1077 (Div. I 2024) (citing Mikkelsen v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Kittitas County*, 189 Wash.2d 516, 526, 404 P.3d 464 (2017); RCW 49.60.180*) (hyperlink added).

“Intentional discrimination is difficult to prove, however, because [d]irect, ‘smoking gun’ evidence of discriminatory animus is rare, since [t]here will seldom be ‘eyewitness’ testimony as to the employer’s mental processes.” Id. (citing Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d at 526, 404 P.3d 464 (quoting Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I, 144 Wash.2d 172, 179, 23 P.3d 440 (2001), abrogated in part by Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d 516, 404 P.3d 464)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original).

“Because intentional discrimination is difficult to prove, Washington follows the three-part evidentiary burden-shifting formula set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973).” Id. (citing Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d at 526, 404 P.3d 464). “The shifting burdens of proof set forth in McDonnell Douglas are designed to assure that the plaintiff [has] his [or her] day in court despite the unavailability of direct evidence.” Id. at 1077-78 (citing Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d at 526, 404 P.3d 464) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (alterations in original).

the mcdonnell douglas burden-shifting framework — three steps

For purposes of wrongful discharge claims, “[t]he McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework has three steps, or prongs:

First, the plaintiff must make a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that

(1) she was within a statutorily protected class,

(2) she was discharged by the defendant,

(3) she was doing satisfactory work, and

(4) after her discharge, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants with qualifications similar to the plaintiff.

If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, it creates a rebuttable presumption of discrimination.

Second, the burden shifts to the defendant, who must “articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.”

Third, if 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.

See id. at 1078 (citing Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d at 527, 404 P.3d 464) (emphasis, hyperlinks, and paragraph formatting added).

the third STEP — pretext PRONG

In Scrivener v. Clark College*, the Washington State Supreme Court “explained what is required for an employee to satisfy the pretext prong[:]

An employee may satisfy the pretext prong by offering sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact either

(1) that the defendant’s reason is pretextual or

(2) that although the employer’s stated reason is legitimate, discrimination nevertheless was a substantial factor motivating the employer.

An employee does not need to disprove each of the employer’s articulated reasons to satisfy the pretext burden of production. Our case law clearly establishes that it is the plaintiff’s burden at trial to prove that discrimination was a substantial factor in an adverse employment action, not the only motivating factor.

Litvack, 546 P.3d at 1078 (citing Scrivener v. Clark College*, 181 Wash.2d 439, 446-47, 334 P.3d 541 (2014)) (paragraph formatting added). There are various ways of proving pretext.

proving pretext — the disparate-discipline method

In Washington, “[o]ne test for pretext is whether[:]

(1) an employee outside the protected class[;]

(2) committed acts of comparable seriousness[;]

(3) but was not demoted or similarly disciplined.

Id. (citing Johnson v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 80 Wash. App. 212, 227, 907 P.2d 1223 (1996); Scrivener*, 181 Wash.2d at 448, 334 P.3d 541 (“employer’s reason ‘was not a motivating factor in employment decisions for other employees in the same circumstances'”)). I call this approach the disparate-discipline method.

Accordinly, under the disparate-discipline method of proving pretext, “[t]he appropriate comparators are employees that are ‘similarly situated‘ to the plaintiff and doing ‘substantially the same work‘ as the plaintiff.” Id. at 1079-80 (citing Johnson, 80 Wash. App. at 227, 907 P.2d 1223; Ellingson v. Spokane Mortg. Co., 19 Wash. App. 48, 54, 573 P.2d 389 (1978)) (emphasis added).

Summary Judgment

“Summary judgment for an employer is seldom appropriate in employment discrimination cases because of the difficulty of proving discriminatory motivation.” Id. at 1078 (citing Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d at 528, 404 P.3d 464) (internal quotation marks omitted) (hyperlinks added). “To overcome summary judgment, the plaintiff needs to show only that a reasonable jury could find that discrimination was a substantial factor in the employer’s adverse employment action.” Id. (citing Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d at 528, 404 P.3d 464) (internal quotation marks omitted) (hyperlinks added).

Substantial Factor:

“A ‘substantial factor’ means that the protected characteristic was a significant motivating factor bringing about the employer’s decision.” Id. at 1078-79 (citing Scrivener*, 181 Wash.2d at 444, 334 P.3d 541) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The protected characteristic need not be the sole factor in the decision.” Id. at 1079 (citing Scrivener*, 181 Wash.2d at 444, 334 P.3d 541) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A significant motivating factor means that the employment decision was more likely than not motivated by discriminatory reasons.” Id. (citing Fell v. Spokane Transit Auth., 128 Wash.2d 618 n.32, 911 P.2d 1319 (1996)) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff’s (employee’s) Burden:

“Because an employer may be motivated by both legitimate and illegitimate reasons, an employee need only present evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether discrimination was a substantial motivating factor.” Id. (citing Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d at 534, 404 P.3d 464). “A plaintiff need not ‘disprove each of the employer’s articulated reasons.'” Id. (citing Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d at 534, 404 P.3d 464) (internal citation omitted).

Circumstantial, Indirect, and Inferential Evidence — opinions & conclusory statements:

“Plaintiffs may rely on circumstantial, indirect, and inferential evidence to establish discriminatory action.” Id. (citing Mikkelsen*, 189 Wash.2d at 526, 404 P.3d 464) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“But an employee must do more than express an opinion or make conclusory statements; the facts must be specific and material.” Id. (citing Crabtree v. Jefferson County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 2*, 20 Wash. App. 2d 493, 510, 500 P.3d 203 (2021)). “An employee’s assertion of good performance to contradict the employer’s assertion of poor performance does not give rise to a reasonable inference of discrimination.” Chen v. State*, 86 Wash. App. 183, 191, 937 P.2d 612 (1997).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework plays a vital role in advancing wrongful discharge claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), particularly in cases where direct evidence of discriminatory intent is lacking. By establishing a structured, three-step process, the framework provides a clear path for plaintiffs to make their case, starting with the establishment of a prima facie case of discrimination. If the plaintiff succeeds in making this initial showing, it creates a rebuttable presumption of discrimination, which shifts the burden to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. The final step requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the employer’s stated reason is a pretext, meaning that discrimination was either the true motivation or a substantial factor in the decision.

The pretext inquiry, as clarified by Washington case law, allows plaintiffs to challenge an employer’s defense by presenting evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact. Methods such as the disparate-discipline test provide a framework for comparing the plaintiff’s treatment to that of similarly situated employees outside the protected class, thereby helping to uncover discriminatory motives hidden behind seemingly legitimate reasons. Importantly, the burden remains on the plaintiff to prove that discrimination was a substantial factor in the adverse employment action, but they are not required to disprove every reason articulated by the employer.

Ultimately, the McDonnell Douglas framework serves not only as a procedural tool but also as a safeguard for employees, ensuring they have a fair opportunity to seek redress when faced with unjust dismissal. By facilitating a fair and systematic evaluation of discrimination claims, the framework upholds the principles of equality and accountability in the workplace, giving plaintiffs the necessary tools to contest unlawful employment practices and promoting broader compliance with anti-discrimination laws.

Read our related articles

» Disparate Treatment: Pretext by Comparison

» Pretext: Scrivener Corrects the Fulton Error*

» The Pretext Element: Self-Evaluations*

» The Pretext Element: Six Limitations*

» The Pretext Element: Two Methods of Proof*

need help?

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.

-gw

Posted on

Unfair Practices of Labor Unions (WLAD)

Unfair Practices of Labor Unions (WLAD)

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what are considered unfair practices of labor unions? 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)

The WLAD, enacted in 1949, is a potent statute covering a broad array of categories, including the following:

RCW 49.60.030
Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of civil rights.

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

(c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without discrimination, including discrimination against families with children;

(d) The right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination;

(e) The right to engage in insurance transactions or transactions with health maintenance organizations without discrimination: PROVIDED, That a practice which is not unlawful under RCW 48.30.300, 48.44.220, or 48.46.370 does not constitute an unfair practice for the purposes of this subparagraph;

(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists … ; and

(g) The right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.

RCW 49.60.030(1) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added). The WLAD also protects, inter alia, employees from the unfair practices of labor organizations.

DEFINITION OF LABOR ORGANIZATION

The WLAD defines the term “labor organization” as follows:

…

(16) “Labor organization” includes any organization which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances or terms or conditions of employment, or for other mutual aid or protection in connection with employment.

RCW 49.60.040(16) (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

UNFAIR PRACTICES OF LABOR UNIONS

The WLAD prohibits both labor unions and labor organizations from engaging in unfair practices, as follows:

RCW 49.60.190
Unfair practices of labor unions.

It is an unfair practice for any labor union or labor organization:

(1) To deny membership and full membership rights and privileges to 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.

(2) To expel from membership 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.

(3) To discriminate against any member, employer, employee, or other person to whom a duty of representation is owed because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability.

RCW 49.60.190*. Under the WLAD, labor unions engaging in unfair practices are subject to liability.

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) (hyperlinks added).

need help?

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.

-gw

Posted on

Adverse Employment Actions: A Closer Look

Adverse Employment Actions: A Closer Look

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.

Advertisement




UNLAWFUL RETALIATION — THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

“To establish a prima facie case of retaliation for a protected activity under the [Washington Law Against Discrimination,] … an employee must show that[:]

(1) he engaged in a statutorily protected activity,

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

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

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) (quoting Robel 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).

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Definition of Prima Facie Case*

» Employment-Discrimination Hotlines & Unlawful Retaliation

» The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*

» The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

» Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

» Top 3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

» Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

» Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

» Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

» Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

» Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

» Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

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.

Posted on

Discrimination Because of Marital Status (WSHRC)

Discrimination Because of Marital Status (WSHRC)

Under the Washington State Human Rights Commission regulations, what is the rule concerning discrimination because of marital status? 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




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.

DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF MARITAL STATUS

WSHRC regulations are contained under Title 162 WAC* (WAC is the acronym for Washington Administrative Code). The general rule concerning discrimination because of marital status is found therein, as follows:

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.

…

(2) Exceptions to the rule. There are narrow exceptions to the rule that an employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person may not discriminate on the basis 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)*.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Definition of Commission (WLAD)

» Definition of Marital Status (WLAD)

» Remedies for Breach of Conciliation Agreements*

» The Intersection of WSHRC and EEOC*

» The Washington State Human Rights Commission*

» WA State Human Rights Commission Complaints

» WA State Human Rights Commission: Functions, Powers, Duties

» WA State Human Rights Commission: Damages for Humiliation & Suffering*

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.

Posted on

Definition of Discriminatory Boycotts or Blacklists (WLAD)

Definition of Discriminatory Boycotts or Blacklists (WLAD)

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), what is the definition of “discriminatory boycotts or blacklists”? 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)

The WLAD is a potent statute enacted in 1949, and it covers a broad array of categories, including the following:

Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of civil rights.

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

(c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without discrimination, including discrimination against families with children;

(d) The right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination;

(e) The right to engage in insurance transactions or transactions with health maintenance organizations without discrimination: PROVIDED, That a practice which is not unlawful under RCW 48.30.300, 48.44.220, or 48.46.370 does not constitute an unfair practice for the purposes of this subparagraph;

(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists … ; and

(g) The right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.

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:

It is an unfair practice for any employer:

[REFUSE TO HIRE]

(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.

[dISCHARGE OR BAR FROM EMPLOYMENT]

(2) To discharge or bar any person from 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.

[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.

RCW 49.60.180 (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATORY BOYCOTTS OR BLACKLISTS

The WLAD defines “discriminatory boycotts or blacklists” as follows:

…

(f) … Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of … [RCW 49.60.030] shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, 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 national origin, citizenship or immigration status, or lawful business relationship:

PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices[.]

RCW 49.60.030(1)(f) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added). Victims of discrimination in violation of the WLAD may seek generous remedies.

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).

READ MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC

Read our post entitled: Remedies for Employment Discrimination in WA State. The external link will take you to our Williams Law Group Blog.

need help?

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.

-gw