Conciliation Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), how may the Washington State Human Rights Commission address the breach of a conciliated agreement? 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

Breach of Conciliated Agreement Under Washington Law

When discrimination complaints are resolved through Washington’s administrative process, the parties may enter into a conciliated agreement approved by the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC). These agreements are designed to eliminate unlawful practices under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60*. But what happens if one party fails to honor the terms of that agreement?

WAC 162-08-109* addresses this issue by outlining the tools available to the Commission’s executive director when a conciliation agreement is breached; it states as follows:

WAC 162-08-109
Breach of conciliated agreement.

If an agreement and order for the elimination of an unfair practice made under RCW 49.60.240* is breached, the executive director may take action appropriate in the circumstances, including one or more of the following:

(1) Specific enforcement. Bringing an action in superior or district court for specific enforcement of the agreement, or for damages pursuant to the conciliation agreement;

(2) Setting aside. Recommending to the commissioners that the agreement and order be set aside, in whole or in part, and that the case be returned to the staff for renewed conference, conciliation and persuasion, or to be referred to commission counsel for hearing; or

(3) Report to prosecuting attorney. Reporting the violation to the appropriate prosecuting attorney for prosecution under RCW 49.60.310*.

WAC 162-08-109* (emphasis and paragraph formatting added).

Options Available to the Commission

Thus, if a party violates the agreement, the executive director may choose one or more of the following steps, depending on the circumstances:

1. Specific Enforcement in Court

The Commission may file an action in superior or district court to enforce the agreement. This could mean seeking a court order that compels compliance with the original terms, or pursuing damages that were provided for in the agreement.

2. Setting Aside the Agreement

The executive director may recommend that the Commissioners void the agreement, in whole or in part. If this occurs, the case can be reopened for further conciliation efforts, or it may be referred to the Commission’s legal counsel for a formal hearing.

3. Referral for Prosecution

In certain cases, the violation may be referred to the appropriate prosecuting attorney for enforcement under RCW 49.60.310*, which provides for criminal penalties in connection with violations of the WLAD.

Why This Rule Matters

For individuals, this rule ensures that entering into a conciliation agreement is not the end of the road—there is accountability if the other party fails to follow through. For attorneys, it highlights the importance of drafting and reviewing conciliation agreements carefully, since breach can lead to renewed litigation, enforcement actions, or even criminal referral.

In short, WAC 162-08-109* underscores that compliance with conciliation agreements is not optional. The Human Rights Commission has meaningful enforcement mechanisms to protect both the integrity of the process and the rights of the parties involved.

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

» Remedies for Breach of Conciliation Agreements*

» WSHRC: Objective of Conciliation

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

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what does the term “conciliation” mean when pursuing complaints through the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”)? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Understanding WAC 162-08-102: The Objective of Conciliation in Washington State Discrimination Law

When an allegation of discrimination arises under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60*, one of the first tools employed by the Washington State Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) is conciliation. This process—grounded in WAC 162-08-102*—offers both legal professionals and the public insight into how the state prioritizes resolution of disputes in a way that not only halts discriminatory practices but also remedies their lingering effects.

The Regulatory Framework

The relevant Washington State Administrative Code* (“WAC”) states as follows:

WAC 162-08-102
Objective of conciliation.

The commission‘s staff in its endeavors to eliminate an unfair practice by conference, conciliation and persuasion under RCW 49.60.250* shall be guided by the purposes of the law against discrimination and by the policies and objectives of the commission, particularly as expressed in WAC 162-08-061*, 162-08-062* and 162-08-298*. Elimination of an unfair practice includes elimination of the effects of the unfair practice, as well as assurance of the discontinuance of the unfair practice.

WAC 162-08-102* (first & second hyperlinks added). This administrative regulation establishes that conciliation is not simply about stopping an unfair practice; it is about eliminating both the discriminatory conduct and its consequences. The regulation instructs the Commission’s staff to approach conciliation guided by:

• The purposes of the WLAD (ensuring equal opportunity and freedom from discrimination).

• The policies and objectives of the Commission, especially those articulated in related provisions:

– WAC 162-08-061* (Relationship of commission to complainant),

– WAC 162-08-062* (Concurrent remedies–Other remedies), and

– WAC 162-08-298* (Remedies).

By linking WAC 162-08-102* to these provisions, the regulation underscores that conciliation is not a mere formality—it is a central mechanism for enforcing civil rights protections in Washington.

What Conciliation Means in Practice

For attorneys representing clients, understanding the scope of conciliation is critical. The process typically involves:

1. Conference and Persuasion – Informal discussions between the Commission, complainant, and respondent to explore resolution.

2. Conciliation Agreements – Negotiated commitments by respondents to both cease the discriminatory conduct and remedy its effects (for example, reinstatement, back pay, or policy changes).

3. Forward-Looking Protections – Ensuring that the respondent adopts practices to prevent recurrence, often through training, monitoring, or systemic reforms.

Unlike private settlement agreements, Commission conciliation carries a public interest dimension: it is designed not just to resolve disputes between parties, but to advance the state’s broader mandate of eradicating discrimination.

Why the Distinction Matters

The language of WAC 162-08-102* makes clear that a successful conciliation must address two distinct goals:

• Stopping the discriminatory practice itself.

• Eliminating its ripple effects. For example, in an employment discrimination case, this could include back wages, seniority adjustments, or workplace reforms that restore the complainant’s position and opportunities.

For practitioners, this means conciliation is not just about negotiating a quick settlement—it is about ensuring structural and remedial relief consistent with the Commission’s objectives.

Implications for Legal Professionals and the Public

For Attorneys: Awareness of conciliation’s dual focus equips counsel to advise clients realistically about potential remedies and obligations. Respondents must be prepared to do more than simply “stop” a practice—they must also correct its consequences.

For the Public: The Commission’s emphasis on conciliation reflects a commitment to fairness. Individuals subjected to discrimination should know that the process aims not only to halt misconduct but also to restore their rights and opportunities.

Conclusion

WAC 162-08-102 reinforces that conciliation is more than compromise—it is corrective justice. By requiring elimination of both the practice and its effects, Washington’s regulatory framework ensures that conciliation serves as a meaningful tool in advancing the WLAD’s mission: a state free from discrimination.

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

» Remedies for Breach of Conciliation Agreements*

» The Intersection of WSHRC and EEOC*

» WA State Human Rights Commission Complaints

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

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

» WSHRC: Breach of Conciliated Agreement

» WSHRC: From Complaint to Conclusion

» WSHRC: Organization and Operations

» WSHRC: Procedure When None Is Specified

» WSHRC: Relationship of Commission to Complainant

» WSHRC: Withdrawal of Complaint