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

May 26, 2022October 21, 2024

Hostile Work Environment: Terms or Conditions of Employment

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, how does one establish the third element of a prima facie case for hostile work environment (i.e., harassment affected the terms or conditions of employment)? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (WA STATE): THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

Hostile work environment is also known as harassment. “To establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show the following four elements:

(1) the harassment was unwelcome,

(2) the harassment was because [plaintiff was a member of a protected class],

(3) the harassment affected the terms or conditions of employment, and

(4) the harassment is imputable to the employer.

Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264, 275 (Wash. 2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original) (emphasis and hyperlink added).

ELEMENT 3: TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

“The third element requires that the harassment be sufficiently pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Davis v. West One Automotive Group, 140 Wn.App. 449 (Div. 3 2007), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1039 (Wash. 2008) (citing Glasgow v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 103 Wash.2d 401, 406, 693 P.2d 708 (1985)).

Totality of the Circumstances Test

“To determine whether … conduct was sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment, courts … look at the totality of the circumstances.” Id. (citing Adams v. Able Bldg. Supply, Inc., 114 Wash.App. 291, 296, 57 P.3d 280 (2002)).

EXAMPLE: DAVIS v. WEST ONE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP

The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 3, applied the Totality-of-the-Circumstances Test in Davis v. West One Automotive Group, 140 Wn.App. 449 (Div. 3 2007), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1039 (Wash. 2008).

Therein:

» … Davis[, an African-American man,] worked for West One Automotive Group (West One) from February 2005 until July 2005.

…

» During the course of his five-month employment, Mr. Davis experienced racially charged comments in the workplace. [For example:]

[1] On one occasion, West One manager and Mr. Davis’s supervisor … asked Mr. Davis if he knew “why blacks have a day off on Martin Luther King Day?” When Mr. Davis said he did not know, … [the supervisor] responded, “Because they shot and killed his black a[##].” Mr. Davis told … [the supervisor] the comment was inappropriate and not to make such a comment again.

[2] Another time, … [Davis’s supervisor] stated, “Blacks on the eastside, Mexicans on the west; hell I don’t know.” Mr. Davis was offended, and told … [the supervisor] so.

[3] A third incident involved … [Davis’s supervisor] walking by Mr. Davis’s desk, kicking it and remarking, “What’s up, bitc[#].” Mr. Davis was offended, regarding “bitc[#]” as a derogatory term some African American men use to refer to each other. Mr. Davis again told … [his supervisor] he was offended.

…

[4] On an occasion when Mr. Davis had customers in the finance office and his telephone rang, … [a fellow sales employee] stopped him from answering stating, “Hey, Buckwheat, you can’t get that call.” Mr. Davis was offended and asked Mr. Klein to refer to him by name.…

» After … [Mr. Davis] was terminated, he brought this action under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter 49.60 RCW, alleging hostile work environment, disparate treatment and retaliatory discharge.

» The trial court granted West One’s motion for summary judgment dismissal.

» Mr. Davis appeal[ed to the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 3].

Id. at 452-54 (internal citations omitted) (paragraph formatting, carets, and hyperlinks added).

THE ANALYSIS: Hostile Work Environment: Element #3 (i.e., harassment affected the terms or conditions of employment):

In this case, the Court (Division 3) initially determined that “[w]hether the comments here affected the conditions of Mr. Davis’s employment is a question of fact.” Id. at 457. Thereafter, the Court found facts reflecting that the harassment was sufficiently pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment, as follows:

» “Mr. Davis asserts he was humiliated by these comments. He claims emotional distress.” Id.

» “The record shows Mr. Davis was often late and absent from work.” Id.

» “There was friction between him and other employees.” Id.

» “When he called in ill a few days before his termination, Mr. Davis testified that he was ‘[p]robably mentally sick, drained.'” Id. at 457-58 (alteration in original).

Based upon the foregoing, the Court concluded “[a]n inference could be drawn that this was the result of the hostile work environment.” Id. at 458.

TOTALITY-OF-THE-CIRCUMSTANCES

Next, the Court applied the Totality-of-the-Circumstances Test and concluded as follows: “Looking at all the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Davis, as required, we conclude he had raised a question of fact with regard to the third element of this claim.” Id. Accordingly, the Court held: “Given the numerous factual issues surrounding Mr. Davis’s hostile work environment claim, we reverse the superior court’s order granting summary judgment dismissal.” Id.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

Definition of Prima Facie Case**

Disability-Based Hostile Work Environment

Harassment & Terms or Conditions of Employment: A Closer Look

Hostile Work Environment: Imputing Harassment to Employer

Hostile Work Environment: Terms or Conditions of Employment

Hostile Work Environment: The Unwelcome Element

McDonnel Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework**

Protected Classes

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (WA State)

The Prima Facie Case: Hostile Work Environment

Top 3 Hostile Work Environment Issues

WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

WLAD: Imputing Harassment to Employers**

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

LEARN MORE

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

March 17, 2022October 21, 2024

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what is an adverse employment action when pursuing a claim of unlawful retaliation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION: THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

“To establish a prima facie case* of retaliation [using the McDonnell Douglas ‘evidentiary burden-shifting’ framework*] an employee must show three things:

(1) the employee took a statutorily protected action,

(2) the employee suffered an adverse employment action, and

(3) a causal link between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403, 411, 430 P.3d 229 (2018) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis, paragraphs, and hyperlinks added).

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

ELEMENT #2: ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION

The WA State Supreme Court, in majority, has not clearly defined the term “adverse employment action.” However, Federal law and the United States Supreme Court offer some useful guidance on the issue.

-Federal Law

The term “adverse employment action” is undefined under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Accordingly, “the question of what constitutes an adverse employment action has received significant attention from the federal courts, which have not reached a consensus on the issue.” Islamic Society of Fire Department Personnel v. City of New York, 205 F.Supp.2d 75, 82 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (internal citation omitted).

“Some courts, such as the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, have held that an ‘adverse employment action’ relates only to ‘ultimate employment actions,’ such as hiring, firing, promotions and demotions.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

-Ninth Circuit

However, the Ninth Circuit has adopted the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission‘s broad definition which takes an “expansive view” of what may be considered an adverse employment action. Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000).

-U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the Ninth Circuit’s general approach to this question in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 2409 (2006), and held that an adverse employment action must be harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of unlawful conduct by the employer.

CONCLUSION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, the definition of “adverse employment action” can be derived from Ninth Circuit caselaw to mean an employment action that is harmful to the point that it could deter a reasonable employee “from making or supporting a charge or unlawful conduct by the employer.”

We invite you to read more of our blog articles concerning this topic:

Adverse Employment Actions: A Closer Look

Definition of Prima Facie Case*

Employment-Discrimination Hotlines & Unlawful Retaliation

The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

Top 3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

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

LEARN MORE

March 16, 2022October 21, 2024

Unlawful Employment Practices: HIV or hepatitis C infections

Employment Discrimination: HIV or Hepatitis C Infections

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), what are unlawful employment practices with respect to HIV or hepatitis C infections? Here’s my point of view.

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 and first paragraph hyperlinks added). The WLAD protects, inter alia, employees from the unfair practices of employers.

UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES: EMPLOYEES WITH HIV OR HEPATITIS C INFECTIONS

Under the WLAD, unfair employment practices with respect to employees with HIV or hepatitis C infections, follow:

Unfair practices with respect to HIV or hepatitis C infection.

(1) No person may require an individual to take an HIV or hepatitis C test, as a condition of hiring, promotion, or continued employment unless the absence of HIV or hepatitis C infection is a bona fide occupational qualification for the job in question.

(2) No person may discharge or fail or refuse to hire any individual, or segregate or classify any individual in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive that individual of employment opportunities or adversely affect his or her status as an employee, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of the results of an HIV test or hepatitis C test unless the absence of HIV or hepatitis C infection is a bona fide occupational qualification of the job in question.

(3) The absence of HIV or hepatitis C infection as a bona fide occupational qualification exists when performance of a particular job can be shown to present a significant risk, as defined by the board of health by rule, of transmitting HIV or hepatitis C infection to other persons, and there exists no means of eliminating the risk by restructuring the job.

(4) For the purpose of this chapter, any person who is actually infected with HIV or hepatitis C, but is not disabled as a result of the infection, shall not be eligible for any benefits under the affirmative action provisions of chapter 49.74 RCW solely on the basis of such infection.

(5) Employers are immune from civil action for damages arising out of transmission of HIV or hepatitis C to employees or to members of the public unless such transmission occurs as a result of the employer’s gross negligence.

RCW 49.60.172 (emphasis and hyperlinks 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).

Top 3 Employment Discrimination Laws

As an employment attorney in Washington State, I often litigate claims on behalf of employee-plaintiffs based on several common employment discrimination laws. Here are the top 3 employment discrimination laws that I litigate in Washington State . . .

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

Advertisement

#3 — THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 (§ 1981)

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) is a federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981. A plaintiff cannot state a claim under Section 1981 unless he has (or would have) rights under the existing (or proposed) contract that he wishes ‘to make and enforce.’” See Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470, 479-80 (2006). And the employment-at-will relationship is a contract for Section 1981 purposes.

Section 1981 is also known as “Equal rights under the law” and it states as follows:

(a) STATEMENT OF EQUAL RIGHTS

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

(b) “MAKE AND ENFORCE CONTRACTS” DEFINED

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

42 U.S.C. § 1981.

#2 — TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter, “Title VII”) “makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex[;] … makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit[;] … and requires that employers reasonably accommodate applicants’ and employees’ sincerely held religious practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.” U.S. EEOC Website (emphasis added).

Two other federal anti-discrimination laws, inter alia, broaden the protected classes, as follows:

(1) Age Discrimination In Employment Act (ADEA) which protects people who are 40 or older from both discrimination on account of age and unlawful retaliation against a person “because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit”; and

(2) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that prohibits discrimination and unlawful retaliation against a qualified person with a disability. The ADA also “makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.” Further, the ADA requires that “employers reasonably accommodate the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.”

See id.

#1 — THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), it is an unfair practice, with very few exceptions, for an employer to refuse to hire any person, to discharge or bar any person from employment, or to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms and conditions of employment because of age (40+); sex (including pregnancy); marital status; sexual orientation (including gender identity); race; color; creed; national origin; citizenship or immigration status; honorably discharged veteran or military status; HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C status; the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability; and state employee or health care whistleblower status. See RCW 49.60.

It is also an unfair practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee, because the employee complained about job discrimination or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit. See id.

WLAD is a broad and powerful remedial statue that was originally enacted in 1949 as an employment discrimination law. See Fraternal Order of Eagles v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order, 148 Wn.2d 224, 237, 59 P.3d 655 (Wash. 2002) (internal citations omitted); Laws of 1949, ch. 183. Remarkably, Washington State enacted the WLAD 15 years before Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

LEARN MORE

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

–gw

December 2, 2021October 21, 2024

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

Under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what is statutorily protected activity when pursuing a claim of unlawful retaliation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

“To establish a prima facie case* of retaliation [using the McDonnell Douglas ‘evidentiary burden-shifting’ framework*] an employee must show three things:

(1) the employee took a statutorily protected action,

(2) the employee suffered an adverse employment action, and

(3) a causal link between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 192 Wn.2d 403, 411, 430 P.3d 229 (2018) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis, paragraphs, and hyperlinks added).

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

ELEMENT #1 — STATUTORILY PROTECTED ACTIVITY

The first element of the prima facie case requires plaintiffs to establish that they “engaged in a statutorily protected activity.” The meaning of this requirement can be found under the anti-retaliation section of the WLAD statute, as follows:

RCW 49.60.210
Unfair practices—Discrimination against person opposing unfair practice—Retaliation against whistleblower.

(1) It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by this chapter, or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter.

(2) It is an unfair practice for a government agency or government manager or supervisor to retaliate against a whistleblower as defined in chapter 42.40 RCW.

(3) It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, government agency, government manager, or government supervisor to discharge, expel, discriminate, or otherwise retaliate against an individual assisting with an office of fraud and accountability investigation under RCW 74.04.012, unless the individual has willfully disregarded the truth in providing information to the office.

RCW 49.60.210 (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

Thus, pursuant to section one, above, statutorily protected activity includes: (1) opposing any practices forbidden by WLAD, or (2) filing a charge, testifying, or assisting in any proceeding under WLAD.

“Violation of this provision [(i.e., RCW 49.60.210)] supports a retaliation claim.” Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 12 Wn.App.2d 557, 570 (Div. 2 2020), review denied, 468 P.3d 616 (2020) (referencing Cornwell, 192 Wn.2d at 411).

We invite you to read more of our blog articles concerning this topic:

Adverse Employment Actions: A Closer Look

Definition of Prima Facie Case*

Employment-Discrimination Hotlines & Unlawful Retaliation

The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

Top 3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

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

LEARN MORE

November 18, 2021October 21, 2024

Failure to Accommodate Religious Practices

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), how does one establish a prima facie claim of Failure to Reasonably Accommodate Religious Practices? Here’s my point of view.

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

Advertisement

FEDERAL LAW

“In the employment context, the WLAD has three federal counterparts:

[(1)] Title VII, [42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.,]

[(2)] [T]he Age discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), [29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.,] … and

[(3)] [T]he Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)[, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.].

Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 490, 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014) (footnotes omitted) (hyperlinks and paragraph formatting added). However, “[t]he United States Supreme Court has never listed the elements of a prima facie claim for failure to accommodate religious practices.” Id. at 501 (footnote omitted).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS: A TEST BASED UPON THE DISPARATE IMPACT BURDEN-SHIFTING SCHEME

“Several Courts of Appeals … have adopted a [failure-to-accommodate-religious-practices] test based on the ‘disparate impact’ burden-shifting scheme established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).” Kumar, 180 Wn.2d at 490 (referencing, e.g., Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 731 F.3d 1106, 1122 (10th Cir. 2013); Walden v. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, 669 F.3d 1277, 1293 (11th Cir. 2012); Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Firestone Fibers & Textiles Co., 515 F.3d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 2008); Berry v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 447 F.3d 642, 655 (9th Cir. 2006)) (emphasis added).

WA STATE: FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE RELIGIOUS PRACTICES: THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

In Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, the Washington State Supreme Court applied the above failure-to-accommodate-religious-practices test for the first time. According to that test, “a plaintiff establishes a prima facie claim of failure to accommodate religious practices by showing that[:]

(1) he or she had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with employment duties;

(2) he or she informed the employer of the beliefs and the conflict; and

(3) the employer responded by subjecting the employee to threatened or actual discriminatory treatment.

Id. at 501-02 (citing Porter v. City of Chicago, 700 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2012); Lawson v. Washington, 296 F.3d 799, 804 (9th Cir. 2002)) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).

THE 3RD ELEMENT: IMMEDIATE RISK OF ACTUAL FIRING/DEMOTION IS IRRELEVANT

Regarding the third element of the prima facie case: “An employee need not be at immediate risk of actual firing or demotion to demonstrate threatened or actual discriminatory treatment.” Id. at 514 n.30 (referencing, e.g., Berry v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 447 F.3d 642, 655 (9th Cir. 2006) (“employee established an ‘adverse employment action’ for purposes of prima facie religious accommodation claim where employer ‘formally instruct[ed] him not to pray with or proselytize to clients'” ); Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Townley Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d 610, 614 n.5 (9th Cir. 1988) (“An employee does not cease to be discriminated against because he temporarily gives up his religious practice and submits to the employment policy.”)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

LEARN MORE

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

-gw

November 4, 2021October 21, 2024

The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Impact

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, what is the prima facie case for disparate impact 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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

DISPARATE IMPACT: THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

The Washington State Supreme Court “has held that the WLAD 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)).

“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).

EXAMPLE: KUMAR v. GATE GOURMET, INC.

For example, in Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014), an employer’s meal policy that was based on security concerns barred employees from bringing in their own food for lunch; and it required employees to eat only employer-provided food. However, the policy forced a group of plaintiff-employees to either work without food or eat food that violated their religious beliefs (i.e., a protected class falling under “creed“).

The plaintiffs subsequently filed suit and alleged that the employer maintained a facially neutral meal policy that fell more harshly on those within a protected class, and the court found a viable claim of disparate impact discrimination–reversing the trial court’s previous dismissal and remanding the case for further proceeding consistent with the opinion.