Practice and Procedure Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

January 7, 2025November 6, 2025

WSHRC: Failure to Provide Information

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what are the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”) regulations concerning failure to provide information? Here’s my point of view.

IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.

Advertisement

When a Party Fails to Provide Information: Understanding WAC 162-08-097

In Washington State, the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) plays a crucial role in enforcing anti-discrimination laws under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60*. To carry out investigations and hearings, the Commission must often request documents, testimony, and other evidence from individuals or organizations involved in a case. But what happens when a party refuses to provide the required information?

The answer lies in WAC 162-08-097*, titled “Failure to provide information.” This regulation outlines the Commission’s authority and process for compelling the production of information—essentially, its enforcement mechanism when cooperation breaks down.

1. Orders Compelling the Production of Information

Under subsection (1), the chairperson of the Commission has broad authority to issue orders similar to those a court can issue under Civil Rule (CR) 37(a)* — “including an order awarding expenses of the motion to compel production of information pursuant to WAC 162-08-09501*.” Thus, CR 37* governs motions to compel discovery in civil litigation, including the ability to require compliance and award expenses if a party refuses to cooperate.

This means that when a person or organization fails to provide documents or testimony during a Commission investigation or hearing, the Commission’s chairperson can issue an order compelling production—much like a court would do in a lawsuit.

The executive director of the Commission may request such an order by filing a motion with the chairperson. Before doing so, reasonable notice must be given to all affected parties. The procedure for filing and resolving the motion follows WAC 162-08-019*, which governs motion practice before the Commission.

If the dispute arises during testimony taken under oath—such as during a deposition—the party asking the question (the “proponent”) has the discretion to either continue the examination or pause it to seek an order compelling the answer.

2. Enforcing an Order in Court

Even after the Commission issues an order compelling production, a party might still refuse to comply. In that case, subsection (2) authorizes the Commission to enforce its order through the courts. Specifically, the matter can be referred to the Commission’s legal counsel, who may seek enforcement of the subpoena or order in Washington Superior Court.

This step ensures that the Commission’s authority has the backing of the judicial system—giving its orders real weight and ensuring that investigations and hearings are not obstructed by non-cooperation.

Implications

For individuals, this rule underscores the importance of cooperating with Commission investigations. Refusing to provide requested information can lead to formal orders and even court involvement.

For attorneys and employers, WAC 162-08-097* serves as a reminder that proceedings before the Commission are not informal or toothless. The Commission possesses quasi-judicial powers that mirror those of a court when it comes to discovery and compliance.

Ultimately, the regulation helps the WSHRC ensure fairness and efficiency in enforcing Washington’s civil rights laws—maintaining the integrity of the process for everyone involved.

In summary

WAC 162-08-097* gives the Washington State Human Rights Commission the authority to compel and enforce the production of information necessary for its investigations. If a party fails to cooperate, the Commission can issue an order similar to a court order under CR 37*—and, if needed, seek judicial enforcement in superior court.

This balance of administrative and judicial power ensures that discrimination investigations proceed fairly and without undue delay.

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

December 7, 2024October 30, 2025

WSHRC: Voluntary Dismissal

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what are the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”) regulations concerning a party’s voluntary dismissal? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Understanding Voluntary Dismissal Under WAC 162-08-268

In Washington State, parties involved in discrimination cases before the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) sometimes choose to withdraw their claims or end their participation in an administrative proceeding. WAC 162-08-268*, titled Voluntary Dismissal, outlines how and when a party may do so—and what legal consequences follow.

1. Dismissal Before the Hearing

Before a hearing begins, the Commission or any party supporting the complaint (hereinafter, “complainant”) may voluntarily dismiss their case or specific claims by filing and serving written notice. See WAC 162-08-268(1)*. This step effectively withdraws those issues from consideration. See id. The only exception applies to cases involving alleged unfair practices in real estate transactions, which are governed by separate rules. See id.

2. Dismissal After the Hearing Has Started

Once a hearing has commenced, the Commission or a complainant may move for voluntary dismissal of the complainant’s case or claim(s) therein; thus, a formal motion is required. See WAC 162-08-268(2)*. If the motion is made before the complainant finishes presenting its opening case, the administrative law judge (ALJ) must grant the dismissal as a matter of right. See id. However, if the motion is made after the complainant has rested, dismissal is discretionary—the ALJ may allow it only for “good cause” and may impose appropriate terms or conditions. See id.

Again, the only exception applies to cases involving alleged unfair practices in real estate transactions, which are governed by separate rules. See id.

3. Legal Effect of a Voluntary Dismissal

Importantly, a voluntary dismissal does not decide the case on the merits. See WAC 162-08-268(2)*. It merely ends the administrative proceeding for the dismissed claim or complainant. See id. The dismissed complainant may still pursue their claims in another forum—such as superior court—if permitted by law and filed within the required time limits. See id.

A dismissal of one claim does not affect any remaining claims, and one complainant’s dismissal does not automatically remove other complainants from the case. See id. However, if the Commission takes a voluntary dismissal of the case in support of the complaint the entire case is closed—”unless the complainant has appeared independently under WAC 162-08-261* or another party has intervened on the complainant’s side pursuant to WAC 162-08-288(4)*, in which circumstance the hearing shall proceed with the remaining parties.” Id.

4. iMPLICATIONS

For complainants and counsel, WAC 162-08-268* provides flexibility to reassess strategy mid-process. Whether to dismiss depends on procedural posture, alternative remedies, and timing. Because dismissal is not a ruling on the merits, parties who wish to pursue their claims in court can generally do so—so long as they act promptly and within statutory deadlines.

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

–gw

October 21, 2024April 21, 2025

WSHRC: Relationship of Commission to Complainant

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

Advertisement

WSHRC: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: RELATIONSHIP OF COMMISSION TO COMPLAINANT

Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 162-08-061* outlines the Washington State Human Rights Commission’s neutral and public-focused role in investigating discrimination complaints. The Commission is tasked with determining whether there is “reasonable cause” to believe an unfair practice has occurred under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (RCW 49.60*), without favoring either party. Its ultimate goal is to eliminate and prevent discrimination—not merely to secure individual remedies for complainants.

While the Commission often seeks to restore a complainant to their prior position, it prioritizes broader systemic remedies when necessary. Notably, the Commission operates independently of a complainant’s personal interests; it may pursue different outcomes if doing so better serves the public interest. Complainants focused solely on personal relief are encouraged to consider pursuing their claims in court, as the law preserves their right to do so.

THE BLACK LETTER LAW: WAC 162-08-061

The relevant WAC provision states as follows:

WAC 162-08-061
Relationship of commission to complainant.

(1) Commission’s role and objectives. In investigating cases the commission seeks to ascertain the facts in order to make an impartial finding of “reasonable cause” or “no reasonable cause.” It has no predisposition in favor of either complainants or respondents. If “reasonable cause” is found, then the objective of the commission is to obtain the remedy that will best eliminate the unfair practices and prevent their recurrence. The judgment as to what will eliminate an unfair practice for purposes of reaching an agreement under RCW 49.60.240* is made initially by the executive director, or other staff persons pursuant to the executive director’s direction, and ultimately by the commissioners. The judgment as to what will eliminate an unfair practice and carry out the purposes of the human rights law after hearing under RCW 49.60.250* is made by the administrative law judge. The commission was not designed to compete with the courts as a forum for the vindication of private rights; its task is to work for the public good of eliminating and preventing discrimination. Although the facts and circumstances giving rise to a claim of discrimination may sometimes give rise to other claims based upon other statutes or principles of common law, the commission will investigate only claims of unfair practices arising under chapter 49.60* RCW et seq. The law against discrimination expressly preserves the right of complainants and/or aggrieved parties to seek other civil or criminal remedies in court or other available forums, either simultaneously with a complaint filed with the commission or in lieu of such a complaint, subject to any limitations or conditions provided in WAC 162-08-062* or elsewhere.

(2) Independence from complainant. The commission’s primary objective is to eliminate and prevent discrimination, which may or may not be consistent with the goals or objectives of a particular complainant or aggrieved person. In negotiating a settlement or seeking an order, the commission generally works for provisions restoring the complainant as nearly as possible to the position he or she would be in if he or she had not been discriminated against, because this is usually an effective way to eliminate the discrimination and prevent its recurrence. But where, in the commission’s judgment, provisions fully restoring the complainant (for instance, reinstatement to the job with back pay) would be inadequate to eliminate a pattern of discrimination, the commission will hold out for additional terms, even though the respondent is willing to settle on the basis of full relief for the complainant only. Except as may be otherwise provided for complaints alleging unfair practices in real estate transactions, the commission may determine that discrimination will be effectively eliminated and prevented by an order that does not afford the complainant every item of relief to which he or she may have a legal claim. The commission assumes that persons who complain to it are as interested in the elimination and prevention of discrimination in general as in their individual cases. If a person is interested only in relief for himself or herself, he or she is advised to seek his or her remedy directly in court pursuant to RCW 49.60.020*, 49.60.030* and/or WAC 162-08-062*.

WAC 162-08-061* (emphasis added).

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

-gw

January 15, 2024April 27, 2025

WSHRC: Procedure When None Is Specified

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what are the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”) regulations concerning procedure when none is specified? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WSHRC–PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE–PROCEDURE WHEN NONE IS SPECIFIED (WAC 162-08-019)

When it comes to legal or administrative procedures, rules are essential—but what happens when there’s no clear rule in place? That’s where WAC 162-08-019 steps in for the Washington State Human Rights Commission. The relevant rule states as follows:

WAC 162-08-019
Procedure when none is specified.

(1) Any orderly procedure. To take care of a problem for which no procedure is specified by this chapter, the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05* RCW, or the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60* RCW, any orderly procedure may be used. Appropriate procedures may be taken from the Washington civil rules for superior courts, the federal rules of civil procedure, or the rules of other administrative agencies of the state of Washington or of the United States.

(2) By chairperson. The chairperson of the commission or an administrative law judge may specify the procedure to be used to dispose of any matter not covered by this chapter, or any matter covered by a rule that has been waived or altered in the interest of justice under authority of WAC 162-08-013*.

WAC 162-08-019* (emphasis added).

WAC 162-08-019 — A CLOSER LOOK

Thus, WAC 162-08-019* provides guidance for situations where no specific procedure is outlined in the WAC, the Administrative Procedure Act (RCW 34.05*), or the state’s Law Against Discrimination (RCW 49.60*). Essentially, if there’s no official roadmap, the commission can use any “orderly procedure” to resolve the issue. These procedures might be borrowed from Washington’s civil court rules, federal court procedures, or even rules from other state or federal agencies.

Additionally, the chairperson of the commission or an administrative law judge has the authority to decide what procedure should be followed in these cases—especially when an existing rule has been waived or adjusted for fairness under WAC 162-08-013*.

CONCLUSION

In short, WAC 162-08-019* ensures flexibility and fairness, making sure the WSHRC can still act efficiently and justly, even when the rulebook is silent.

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

-gw

October 21, 2023April 29, 2025

WSHRC: Withdrawal of Complaint

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

Advertisement

WSHRC — PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT (WAC 162-08-091)

Filing a discrimination complaint with the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) is a serious step in seeking justice. But what happens if a complainant later decides they no longer wish to pursue the matter? Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 162-08-091* provides clear guidance on how — and under what conditions — a complaint can be withdrawn. The relevant provision states as follows:

WAC 162-08-091
Withdrawal of complaint.

(1) Consent necessary. A complaint or any part thereof may be withdrawn only with the consent of the commission.

(2) Form. A request for withdrawal of a complaint must be in writing and signed by the complainant and must state in full the reasons why withdrawal is requested. Blank forms may be obtained at commission offices.

WAC 162-08-091*.

Withdrawal Isn’t Automatic

First and foremost, the rule makes one thing clear: you cannot simply retract your complaint on your own. According to subsection (1), any withdrawal — whether partial or complete — requires the consent of the commission. This ensures the integrity of the process and allows the commission to determine whether the withdrawal is appropriate, especially in cases where broader public interest may be at stake.

A Formal Process

Subsection (2) of WAC 162-08-091 outlines the proper method for requesting a withdrawal. The request must be:

• In writing

• Signed by the complainant

• Accompanied by a full explanation of why the withdrawal is being sought

This formal process helps the commission assess the reasons behind the request and ensures that the decision to withdraw is made voluntarily and without coercion. For convenience, blank withdrawal request forms can be obtained at commission offices.

Why This Matters

The withdrawal rule protects both individual rights and the public interest. While it respects a complainant’s autonomy, it also enables the commission to evaluate whether continuing the investigation might still be warranted — for example, if the issue reveals a systemic problem.

In short, WAC 162-08-091 balances personal choice with public accountability, ensuring that discrimination complaints in Washington are handled thoughtfully and responsibly from start to finish.

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

-gw

January 13, 2023November 27, 2025

WSHRC: Findings

Advertisement

Understanding WAC 162-08-098: Findings in Human Rights Commission Investigations

When the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) investigates a discrimination complaint, its ultimate goal is to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that an unfair practice has occurred. WAC 162-08-098* outlines how the Commission formalizes those determinations through official findings, which serve as a critical turning point in the complaint process.

Purpose of the Findings Document

Every investigation concludes with a written findings document containing two key elements:

1. Findings of fact — A summary of what the investigation determined actually occurred, based on evidence gathered.

2. Ultimate finding — A formal conclusion stating whether there is:

• Reasonable cause to believe discrimination or another unfair practice has occurred,

• No reasonable cause, or

• A jurisdictional finding, as discussed below.

This document provides transparency and structure, ensuring that both parties understand the Commission’s basis for its conclusions.

Jurisdictional Findings

Sometimes, the facts reveal that the matter is not within the Commission’s jurisdiction—for example, if the complaint involves a federal agency or an employer too small to be covered under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). In such cases, the Commission issues a finding of “no jurisdiction.”

In extraordinary circumstances, even when the Commission technically has jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise it for overriding reasons of law or policy. A rare example is when the complaint is filed against the Commission itself, which would create a conflict of interest. In these situations, the ultimate finding is “jurisdiction declined.”

Scope of a “Reasonable Cause” Finding

When the Commission finds reasonable cause, it must specify:

• The specific unfair practice found (such as discriminatory discharge or housing denial),

• The individual(s) affected, and

• If applicable, the class of persons impacted.

This level of detail ensures that remedial efforts—such as conciliation or negotiated settlements—address the actual harm uncovered during investigation.

Commissioner Involvement and Actions

Findings of no reasonable cause are reported to the Commissioners at a meeting and become official unless the Commissioners vote to set them aside.

Findings of reasonable cause empower Commission staff to pursue conciliation efforts—attempting to resolve the matter voluntarily through dialogue and agreement.

Proposed findings of “no jurisdiction” or “jurisdiction declined” require formal approval by the Commissioners through a vote at a meeting.

The Legal Effect of Findings

Importantly, a finding of reasonable cause or no reasonable cause is not a legal adjudication. It does not determine whether discrimination actually occurred in the legal sense—it merely reflects the Commission’s administrative conclusion based on its investigation.

Implications

WAC 162-08-098 ensures that the Human Rights Commission’s processes remain fair, consistent, and transparent. By clearly defining how and when findings are made—and distinguishing investigative conclusions from legal determinations—the rule protects the integrity of both complainants’ and respondents’ rights. It also reinforces the Commission’s role as a neutral fact-finder, dedicated to resolving discrimination claims efficiently while maintaining public trust in the enforcement of Washington’s anti-discrimination laws.

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

–gw

When a Party Fails to Provide Information: Understanding WAC 162-08-097

1. Orders Compelling the Production of Information

2. Enforcing an Order in Court

Implications

In summary

RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

Understanding Voluntary Dismissal Under WAC 162-08-268

1. Dismissal Before the Hearing

2. Dismissal After the Hearing Has Started

3. Legal Effect of a Voluntary Dismissal

4. iMPLICATIONS

RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

WSHRC: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: RELATIONSHIP OF COMMISSION TO COMPLAINANT

THE BLACK LETTER LAW: WAC 162-08-061

WAC 162-08-061 Relationship of commission to complainant.

RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

WSHRC–PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE–PROCEDURE WHEN NONE IS SPECIFIED (WAC 162-08-019)

WAC 162-08-019 — A CLOSER LOOK

CONCLUSION

RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

WSHRC — PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT (WAC 162-08-091)

Withdrawal Isn’t Automatic

A Formal Process

Why This Matters

RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

Understanding WAC 162-08-098: Findings in Human Rights Commission Investigations

Purpose of the Findings Document

Jurisdictional Findings

Scope of a “Reasonable Cause” Finding

Commissioner Involvement and Actions

The Legal Effect of Findings

Implications

RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

WAC 162-08-061
Relationship of commission to complainant.