Employment Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

August 22, 2024April 29, 2025

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.

February 16, 2024December 4, 2025

WSHRC: Newspapers & Other Advertising Media

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what are the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”) regulations concerning newspapers and other advertising media? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

A Short Guide to WAC 162-16-280: Anti-Discrimination Rules for Job Ads in Washington State

Washington State’s WAC 162-16-280* outlines how newspapers, online job boards, and other advertising platforms must handle employment advertisements to prevent discrimination. Though brief, the rule plays an important role in shaping fair hiring practices. Below is a concise overview of what the regulation requires and why it matters.

1. No Segregated or Preference-Based Job Ad Headings

The regulation makes it an unfair practice for any advertising medium to publish employment ads under headings that separate or favor applicants based on protected characteristics—such as race, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, or other statuses protected under Washington law.

Categories like “Jobs for Seniors” or “Women Only” are prohibited unless a bona fide occupational qualification* (BFOQ) legitimately applies. BFOQs are narrow exceptions and must reflect a true, job-related necessity.

2. Ads Showing Preference Must Be Traceable

While discriminatory headings are not allowed, advertising media are not automatically liable if an ad’s language indicates a direct or subtle preference based on protected status. Instead, the media must be able to provide the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) with the name and address of the person who submitted the advertisement if the Commission requests it.

This ensures transparency and allows the WSHRC to investigate potential discriminatory practices by advertisers.

3. Encouraged Best Practices for Advertising Platforms

WAC 162-16-280* encourages newspapers and other ad distributors to take proactive steps to reduce discriminatory language in employment ads, including:

• Keeping lists of prohibited or problematic job terms, along with suggested inclusive alternatives.

• Training staff to alert employers when their proposed job titles or descriptions may violate anti-discrimination rules.

• Making copies of the regulation available to advertisers who want guidance.

These measures help employers avoid inadvertent violations and promote consistency in fair advertising standards.

Why This Rule Matters

WAC 162-16-280* positions advertising platforms as frontline partners in preventing discrimination. Since job ads often shape who feels welcome—or excluded—during hiring, compliance with this rule helps ensure equal access to employment opportunities from the very first step.

Key Points for Legal Professionals and Employers

• Review ad headings and titles carefully; discriminatory categories are prohibited.

• Use BFOQs sparingly and document why they’re necessary.

• Ensure advertising partners can identify the source of each job ad.

• Encourage staff or clients to use inclusive, neutral language when drafting job postings.

By setting clear boundaries and encouraging responsible practices, WAC 162-16-280* helps foster a fairer, more inclusive hiring environment across Washington State.

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

» WA State Human Rights Commission Complaints

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

» WSHRC: From Complaint to Conclusion

» WSHRC: Organization and Operations

» WSHRC: Relationship of Commission to Complainant

» WSHRC: Withdrawal of Complaint

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

July 23, 2023April 23, 2025

WSHRC: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what are the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”) regulations concerning bona fide occupational qualification? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WSHRC — EMPLOYMENT — BONA FIDE OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATION

In Washington State, discrimination in employment based on protected characteristics is prohibited under the Washington Law Against Discrimination. However, the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 162-16-240) recognizes a narrow exception to this rule: the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).

A BFOQ allows an employer to consider a person’s protected status only when it is genuinely necessary to the job. This isn’t a loophole for bias—it’s a specific, limited carve-out. The Washington State Human Rights Commission emphasizes that BFOQs must be applied narrowly and thoughtfully.

THE BLACK LETTER LAW: WAC 162-16-240

The relevant provision is WAC 162-16-240*, and it states as follows:

WAC 162-16-240
Bona fide occupational qualification.

Under the law against discrimination, there is an exception to the rule that an employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person may not discriminate on the basis of protected status; that is if a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) applies. The commission believes that the BFOQ exception should be applied narrowly to jobs for which a particular quality of protected status will be essential to or will contribute to the accomplishment of the purposes of the job. The following examples illustrate how the commission applies BFOQs:

(1) Where it is necessary for the purpose of authenticity or genuineness (e.g., model, actor, actress) or maintaining conventional standards of sexual privacy (e.g., locker room attendant, intimate apparel fitter) the commission will consider protected status to be a BFOQ.

(2) A 911 emergency response service needs operators who are bilingual in English and Spanish. The job qualification should be spoken language competency, not national origin.

(3) An employer refuses to consider a person with a disability for a receptionist position on the basis that the person’s disability “would make customers and other coworkers uncomfortable.” This is not a valid BFOQ.

(4) A person with a disability applies for promotion to a position at a different site within the firm. The firm does not promote the person because doing so would compel the firm to install an assistive device on equipment at that site to enable the person to properly perform the job. This is not a valid BFOQ.

WAC 162-16-240* (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

What Qualifies as a BFOQ?

Thus, some key examples clarify when a BFOQ may or may not apply:

• Authenticity or Privacy: A protected status may be essential when authenticity matters—such as hiring an actor for a culturally specific role—or when maintaining privacy is necessary, like hiring locker room attendants or intimate apparel fitters.

• Skill Over Status: Requiring bilingual ability for a 911 operator position is acceptable. However, the requirement should be based on language skills, not the applicant’s ethnic background.

• Discomfort Isn’t a Defense: Employers cannot reject a person with a disability simply because coworkers or customers might feel “uncomfortable.” That’s not a valid BFOQ.

• Accommodation is Not Optional: Refusing to promote someone with a disability to avoid the cost of accommodations—like assistive equipment—also fails to meet the BFOQ standard.

CONCLUSION

The BFOQ rule exists to ensure that only in rare, well-justified cases can an employer factor in protected status. Washington law draws a clear line between legitimate job requirements and discriminatory practices disguised as necessity.

Employers should tread carefully—and consult legal guidance—before invoking a BFOQ. Misusing this exception can lead to serious legal consequences and undermine workplace equity.

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

» WA State Human Rights Commission Complaints

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

» WSHRC: From Complaint to Conclusion

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