LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

May 7, 2026May 7, 2026

Severance Agreements and Employment Discrimination (WA State)

In Washington State, how do employer severance/separation agreements typically limit an employee’s right to pursue claims of employment discrimination against the employer? 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

Severance Agreements and Employment Discrimination (WA State)

When a job ends suddenly, employers often move quickly to present a severance or separation agreement. These documents can look routine — even generous — especially when you’re under financial pressure. But in Washington State, severance agreements often require you to give up significant legal rights, including the ability to bring discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful‑termination claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD); bring associated WA State common‑law claims; and bring similar federal statutory claims against the employer.

Before you sign anything, it’s important to understand what you may be giving up — and what you might lose if you don’t sign.

What a Severance Agreement Actually Does

A severance agreement is not just a paycheck. It’s a binding contract typically drafted by the employer’s lawyers. In relation to claims of employment discrimination (and related claims), those contracts often contain a plurality of restrictive provisions requiring the employee‘s agreement, such as the following:

• Release the employer from all claims, whether you know about them or not

• Waive rights under, inter alia, Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ADA, ADEA, and Washington common law

• Keep the terms confidential

• Avoid criticizing the employer

• Accept limits on future employment or communication

These agreements are designed to protect the company. They are not written with your interests in mind.

Why Signing Too Quickly Can Be Risky

You May Be Waiving Claims Worth Far More Than the Severance

If you were treated unfairly, pushed out after reporting misconduct, denied accommodations, or terminated shortly after taking protected leave (or after engaging in other protected activities), you might have legal claims with substantial value. WLAD and WA State common law allows recovery for, inter alia, lost wages, emotional harm, and attorney’s fees — often far exceeding the severance amount.

You Might Not Realize You Have a Claim

Many employees don’t know that:

• Washington’s disability and pregnancy* protections are broader than federal law

• Retaliation can occur even after a single complaint

• Hostile work environment claims can develop gradually

• Timing matters — terminations following medical leave or accommodation requests are often scrutinized

These are just a sample of potentially unrealized issues–not obvious at first glance–that a lawyer can help you identify.

Once You Sign, You MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO Go Back

Most releases are final. Even if new facts emerge or you later realize you had a strong case, the agreement might prevent you from pursuing it.

The Other Side of the Decision: What If You Don’t Sign?

It’s important to acknowledge the real trade‑off. If you decline the severance and pursue discrimination or retaliation claims instead, there is always a possibility that:

• Your claims don’t succeed

• The evidence isn’t strong enough

• The case settles for less than the severance — or not at all

If that happens, the severance offer is typically gone for good. Employers rarely re‑extend the same deal once it’s rejected. This is why understanding the strength of your claims — and the fairness of the offer — before the deadline to sign can be essential before making a decision.

Why Promptly Talking to an Attorney First Makes a Difference

You Get a Clear Picture of Your Rights

An employment lawyer can help you evaluate whether the severance amount is reasonable compared to the potential value of your employment-discrimination claims and can flag problematic or overly broad terms.

You May Be Able to Negotiate Better Terms

Employees who seek legal advice/representation might be able to secure:

• Higher severance payments

• More favorable confidentiality or non‑disparagement language

• Neutral references

• Narrower releases

• Extended benefits

Employers often anticipate negotiation — and they might take represented employees more seriously.

You Protect Your Future Employment Options

Some agreements include non‑compete or non‑solicitation clauses that can affect your next job. A lawyer may be able to help you avoid signing something that limits your career.

You May Not Have to Decide on the Spot

Even if your employer sets a short deadline to sign the agreement, you might be able request more time. There may also be other related protections if both (1) the release includes a waiver of U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) age-discrimination claims; and (2) the employee is 40 or older. Talk to an attorney first to learn more.

Conclusion

Signing a severance agreement is a decision that deserves careful thought. These contracts often require employees to give up important legal claims, while declining them can mean losing compensation that won’t be offered again. Because both choices carry real consequences, getting advice from an employment attorney before you commit can help you understand your options and choose the path that best protects your related rights.

IMPORTANT: The potential outcomes discussed herein are not guaranteed and the outcome of any particular case may vary significantly and unexpectedly from the same; consult with an attorney first both to discuss the specific details of your case and to learn more.

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment 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

April 30, 2026May 13, 2026

Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

Under the rules of logic, what does the term Ignoratio Elenchi mean as applied in the legal profession? 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*, an official governmental website, or a well-recognized organization. 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

Law and Logic: Understanding Ignoratio Elenchi in the Courtroom

In both law and logic, precision matters. Arguments are not merely about persuasion—they are about relevance, structure, and ultimately, truth. One of the most persistent logical missteps encountered in legal advocacy is ignoratio elenchi, often translated as “irrelevant conclusion.” While the term may sound esoteric, the underlying concept is both common and consequential in trial practice.

What Is Ignoratio Elenchi?

At its core, ignoratio elenchi occurs when an argument purports to prove one thing but actually proves something else. The conclusion may be valid in isolation, even compelling, but it fails to address the issue that is actually in dispute. In other words, the argument “misses the point.”

For example, imagine a defendant on trial for breach of contract. In response, their counsel spends considerable time demonstrating that the defendant is a generous community member who donates to charity. While this may be true—and even admirable—it does nothing to resolve whether a contract was breached. The conclusion (the defendant is a good person) is irrelevant to the legal question at hand.

An Example: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

Why It Matters in Trial Advocacy

Trial lawyers operate within a structured framework defined by pleadings, elements of claims, burdens of proof, and rules of evidence. Every argument must connect directly to a material issue in the case. When an attorney commits ignoratio elenchi, they risk undermining their own credibility and distracting the judge or jury.

This misstep can appear in several ways

In the legal profession, ignoratio elenchi can appear in several ways, including the following:

• Misaligned Evidence: Presenting evidence that does not relate to any element of the claim or defense.

• Emotional Diversions: appealing to sympathy or prejudice without tying those appeals to legally relevant facts.

• Shifting the Issue: subtly reframing the dispute into a more favorable—but legally irrelevant—question.

While such tactics may occasionally have rhetorical force, they are logically unsound and often vulnerable to objection.

Judicial and Jury Implications

Judges are trained to identify irrelevance and may exclude such arguments under evidentiary rules*. For instance, under Rule 401* of the Federal Rules of Evidence*, evidence must have a tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable. Arguments rooted in ignoratio elenchi frequently fail this test.

Jurors, however, are not always as equipped to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant conclusions. This creates a tension: an argument may be logically flawed yet psychologically persuasive. Skilled trial lawyers must navigate this carefully—advocating persuasively without straying into irrelevance that could draw objections or appellate scrutiny.

Avoiding the Fallacy

To guard against ignoratio elenchi, attorneys should continually ask:

• What is the precise issue the court must decide?

• What elements must be proven?

• Does this argument directly support or refute one of those elements?

This discipline ensures that advocacy remains anchored to the legal questions that matter.

Strategic Use—and Ethical Boundaries

It would be naïve to suggest that irrelevant arguments never influence outcomes. In practice, some attorneys may intentionally introduce peripheral themes to shape narratives or juror perceptions. However, there is a fine line between persuasive storytelling and logical misdirection.

Ethically, lawyers are bound to present arguments grounded in law and fact. See WA State Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 3.1*. Overreliance on irrelevant conclusions risks not only objections and judicial reprimand but also damage to professional reputation.

Conclusion

ignoratio elenchi is more than an abstract logical fallacy—it is a practical hazard in legal argumentation. For trial lawyers, mastering the distinction between relevant and irrelevant conclusions is essential to effective advocacy. For the public, understanding this concept offers insight into how legal arguments can sometimes persuade without truly proving their point.
In the courtroom, as in logic, the question is not just whether an argument is convincing—but whether it actually answers the question being asked.

Read Our Related Articles

» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Populum

LEARN MORE

–gw

April 25, 2026April 30, 2026

What Qualifies as Wrongful Termination in Washington?

Advertisement

What qualifies as wrongful termination in Washington?

answer:

The terms “wrongful termination” and “wrongful discharge” are synonymous in Washington State and are typically evaluated within the scope of the “at-will” doctrine (hereinafter, “Doctrine”); Washington has been an “at-will” employment state since at least 1928. Under this doctrine, an employer can terminate an at-will employee for any reason—whether it’s no reason at all, a legitimate reason, or even an unethical one—without worrying about legal repercussions. Likewise, unless there is a contract that specifies different terms, employees have the unrestricted right to leave their job at any time (i.e., at will). However, the following three recognized exceptions to the general at-will employment doctrine qualify as wrongful termination in Washington:

(1) The Statutory Exception;

(2) The Judicial Exception; and

(3) The Contractual Exception.

(1) THE STATUTORY EXCEPTION

“First, both Congress and the Washington State Legislature have modified the employment at-will doctrine by limiting employers’ rights to discharge employees.” Ford v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 146 Wn.2d 146, 153, 43 P.3d 1223, (Wash. 2002) (citing National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (1994); Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)* (1994); chapter 49.60* RCW (Washington’s law against discrimination); see also chapter 49.12* RCW (prohibiting discharge of employees for testifying in investigations regarding labor conditions, worker earnings, or sex discrimination); RCW 49.44.090* (prohibiting discharge of employee for being age 40 and over)).

These statutory laws provide an exception to the at-will doctrine that protects the employee’s rights and limits the employer’s ability to discharge an employee at-will.

(2) THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION

Second, Washington courts “have recognized a narrow public-policy exception to an employer’s right to discharge an employee”; this exception is commonly known as “wrongful termination in violation of public policy*.” Id. (referencing Smith v. Bates Technical Coll., 139 Wash.2d 793, 991 P.2d 1135 (2000) (public policy exception to “for-cause” employees); Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931, 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (discharge of armored truck driver who abandoned post to prevent murder violated public policy)).

“Under this exception, an employer does not have the right to discharge an employee when the termination would frustrate a clear manifestation of public policy.” Id. “By recognizing this public policy exception, … [Washington State Supreme Court has] expressed its unwillingness to shield an employer’s action which otherwise frustrates a clear manifestation of public policy.” Id. at 154 (internal quotation marks omitted).

(3) THE CONTRACTUAL EXCEPTION

“Third, employers and employees can contractually modify the at-will employment relationship, eschewing the common law rule in favor of negotiated rights and liabilities.” Id. at 154 (internal citation omitted). “An employer can bargain away its right to discharge an employee without cause by contracting not to do so.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

“The law governing this exception is not a species of the employment at-will doctrine; it is the law of contracts. Therefore, the law of contracts governs an injured party’s right to recover damages under this exception.” Id. at 155 (internal citation omitted). “Unlike a wrongful discharge, a breach of contract is neither immoral nor wrongful; it is simply a broken promise.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

Did you resign from your job?

Even if you resigned from your job, you might still be able to claim wrongful termination in Washington. Take our Constructive Discharge Test (video) to learn more:

Read Our Related Articles

»Constructive Discharge in WA State*

»Effective Date For Constructive Discharge (WA State)

»Retaliatory Discharge (WA State)

»The Prima Facie Case: Discriminatory Discharge

»WA State Torts: Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy*

»What is the Statute of Limitations for Wrongful Termination in WA?

»WLAD: The Discriminatory Discharge Provision*

*NOTE: This link will take you to our Williams Law Group Blog, an external website.

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.

April 23, 2026April 25, 2026

WA Code of Judicial Conduct: Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

b WA Code of Judicial Conduct: Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

Under the Washington Code of Judicial Conduct (hereinafter ,”CJC”), to what extent must a full‑time judge actively identify, prevent, and address bias, prejudice, or harassment while carrying out judicial duties? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment Under Washington’s Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 2, Rule 2.3)

Washington’s Code of Judicial Conduct* (CJC) requires full‑time judges to do more than avoid discriminatory behavior. The rules place an affirmative responsibility on judges to recognize when bias or harassment is occurring, to stop it, and to prevent it from shaping the courtroom environment. This duty is central to maintaining public confidence in the fairness of the justice system, and it is reinforced by the associated CJC* comments section, as follows:

[1] A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute.

WA State CJC*, Canon 2, Rule 2.3, comment 1 (emphasis added).

What the Rules Protect Against

Washington’s judicial‑conduct rules bar judges from engaging in behavior that treats people differently because of personal characteristics, and they also require judges to stop others (i.e., court staff, court officials, or others subject to judge’s direction and control; and parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others) from doing so. These protections are intentionally broad. They cover traits such as race, color, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability, age, and financial circumstances. The purpose is straightforward: everyone who enters a courtroom should be treated with equal dignity, regardless of background or identity.

The rules also prohibit harassment, which is understood to include behavior or language that demeans, targets, or expresses hostility toward someone based on these characteristics. This includes obvious misconduct, like insults or slurs, but it also reaches more subtle forms of disrespect that can influence how participants experience the process. The standard is designed to protect both the fairness of the proceeding and the dignity of the individuals involved.

the meaning of bias, prejudice, and harassment

The CJC clarifies the meaning of the terms bias, prejudice, and harassment, as follows:

[2] Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not limited to epithets; slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant references to personal characteristics. Even facial expressions and body language can convey to parties and lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media, and others an appearance of bias or prejudice. A judge must avoid conduct that may
reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased.

[3] Harassment, as referred to in paragraphs (B) and (C)[–see “Black Letter Law” section, below–]is verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a person on bases such as race, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation.

[4] Sexual harassment includes but is not limited to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is unwelcome.

Id.* at comments 2-4 (emphasis added).

A Judge’s Duty to Step In

A defining feature of Washington’s approach is that judges cannot remain passive observers. When discriminatory conduct arises — whether from an attorney, litigant, witness, juror, or court staff — the judge is expected to take reasonable steps to address it. That may involve interrupting inappropriate remarks, redirecting questioning, correcting unequal treatment, or giving instructions that reinforce the expectation of respectful behavior.

The responsibility is both supervisory and corrective. Judges are expected to shape the courtroom environment in real time, ensuring that proceedings remain fair and respectful for everyone involved.

When Sensitive Characteristics Are Relevant

There are situations where a judge must discuss characteristics such as race, gender, or disability because the law requires it. For example, discrimination claims, statutory definitions, or credibility assessments may involve these topics. The CJC* recognizes this reality. What matters is the purpose: the discussion must be tied to the legal or factual issues before the court, not personal views or stereotypes. According to the CJC*:

[5] “Bias or prejudice” does not include references to or distinctions based upon race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, sexual orientation, or social or economic status when these factors are legitimately relevant to the advocacy or decision of the proceeding, or, with regard to administrative matters, when these factors are legitimately relevant to the issues involved.

Id.* at comment 5 (emphasis added).

The Obligation Extends Beyond Hearings

Judicial duties are not limited to trials and hearings. The expectation of impartiality and respectful conduct applies to all judicial activities, including administrative responsibilities, interactions with court staff, and public‑facing functions. A judge’s behavior in any official capacity influences how the public perceives the justice system, and the CJC* requires judges to uphold these standards wherever their role places them.

THE BLACK-LETTER LAW

For purposes of this article, the relevant portion of the CJC* is Canon 2*, as follows:

A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.

Id. Canon 2* contains, inter alia, Rule 2.3 (Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment) that states as follows:

(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.

(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.

(C) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, against parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others.

(D) The restrictions of paragraphs (B) and (C) do not preclude judges or lawyers from making reference to factors that are relevant to an issue in a proceeding.

Id.*

Conclusion

I believe Washington’s Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to be active stewards of fairness. They must recognize and prevent discriminatory behavior, intervene when it occurs, and maintain an environment where every participant is treated with dignity. These obligations reinforce a simple but essential principle: justice depends not only on the decisions judges make, but also on the atmosphere in which those decisions are reached.

*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.

LEARN MORE

–gw

April 16, 2026May 13, 2026

Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Populum

Under the rules of logic, what does the term Argumentum Ad Populum mean as applied in the legal profession? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Argumentum Ad Populum: When Popularity Isn’t Proof

In both everyday conversations and legal arguments, it’s common to hear claims supported by phrases like “everyone knows” or “most people agree.” This line of reasoning is known as argumentum ad populum, or the “appeal to the majority.” While it can be persuasive, it is not logically sound.

At its core, argumentum ad populum assumes that a claim must be true simply because many people believe it. But widespread belief does not equal factual accuracy. History offers plenty of examples where majority opinion was later proven wrong. In legal contexts, relying on popularity instead of evidence can weaken an argument and obscure the truth.

An Example: Argumentum Ad Populum (Appeal to the Majority)

Implications

general public

For the general public, this fallacy often appears in discussions about social norms, consumer choices, or public opinion. For example, saying a product is “the best” because it’s widely used does not necessarily mean it is objectively superior.

legal professionals

In the legal field, the stakes are higher. Attorneys must base arguments on statutes, case law, and evidence—not on what the majority thinks. While public opinion can influence areas like jury perception or legislative change, it is not, by itself, proof of a legal claim. Courts are tasked with applying the law, not measuring popularity.

Conclusion

That said, understanding argumentum ad populum is still valuable for legal professionals. Recognizing when opposing counsel subtly relies on popular sentiment rather than legal authority can help sharpen responses and clarify the issues at hand.

In short, popularity may explain why people believe something, but it does not establish whether it is true. Distinguishing between the two is essential for clear thinking—both inside and outside the courtroom.

Read Our Related Articles

» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

LEARN MORE

–gw

April 9, 2026April 25, 2026

Personality Tests and Employment Discrimination

To what extent do personality tests used in job screenings create a risk of employment discrimination under Washington State law? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

When Personality Tests Become Discrimination: A Growing Risk in Washington Hiring

Washington employers increasingly rely on personality tests, behavioral assessments, and algorithm‑driven screening tools to sort job applicants. These tools promise efficiency and objectivity — but they also create real risks under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), especially in Pierce and King Counties where tech‑driven hiring is common.

Why These Tests Raise Red Flags

Many personality assessments measure traits that correlate with protected conditions. For example:

• “Stress tolerance” scores may penalize applicants with anxiety disorders.

• “Adaptability” metrics can disadvantage neurodivergent candidates.

• “Energy level” ratings may screen out individuals with chronic health conditions.

Under WLAD, discrimination doesn’t require intent. If a hiring tool disproportionately excludes people with disabilities—or any protected class—the employer may be liable even if the tool was purchased from a third‑party vendor.

Washington’s Broader Legal Standard

Unlike federal law, WLAD is interpreted liberally* in favor of employees. Employers should be wary of outsourcing discrimination to software, consultants, or automated systems. If the tool creates a disparate impact, the employer should own the consequences.

This means a well‑meaning HR department in Tacoma or Seattle might inadvertently violate WLAD simply by relying on a vendor’s “validated” assessment that screens out protected groups.

What Employers Should Be Doing (opinion)

To stay compliant, I believe Washington employers should:

• Audit any personality or behavioral test for disparate impact.

• Request validation studies specific to the job and region — not generic national data.

• Offer accommodations or alternative assessments when disability may affect results.

• Avoid blanket reliance on automated scoring or algorithmic rankings.

These steps are beyond best practices and are increasingly necessary as regulators and courts scrutinize algorithmic hiring.

What Employees Should Know

If you were rejected after taking a personality test or online assessment, and you believe the results were influenced by a disability or other protected characteristic, you may have rights under WLAD. Washington law allows applicants to challenge discriminatory screening tools even before they are hired.

Conclusion

As hiring becomes more automated, Washington’s anti‑discrimination laws remain firmly human‑centered. Employers in WA State should treat personality tests and algorithmic tools with caution — and applicants should know that a computer‑generated rejection isn’t always the final word.

Read Our Related Articles

» Employment Discrimination Based Upon Cannabis Use (WA State)

» Job Applicants and Criminal Records

» Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

LEARN MORE

–gw

April 2, 2026April 2, 2026

WSHRC: Service and Filing of Papers

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

Advertisement

Understanding WAC 162‑08‑041: How Service and Filing Work in Washington Human Rights Commission Proceedings

When people think about discrimination complaints or administrative hearings, they often focus on the substance of the dispute — what happened, who’s responsible, and what the law says. But behind every case is a quieter, procedural engine that keeps the process moving. One of the most important parts of that engine is service and filing: making sure documents get to the right people, at the right time, in the right way.

For matters before the Washington State Human Rights Commission (“WSHRC” or “Commission”), those mechanics are governed by WAC 162‑08‑041*. Although the rule is short, it plays an outsized role in ensuring fairness and clarity for both represented and unrepresented parties.

Here’s a practical breakdown.

1. How Documents Must Be Served

The rule gives several acceptable methods of service, ranging from traditional to old‑school:

• Personal delivery

• First‑class, registered, or certified mail

• Telegraph (yes, it’s still listed)

• Leaving a copy at the person’s principal office or place of business

The takeaway is flexibility. The Commission recognizes that parties may have different resources and levels of sophistication, so it allows multiple avenues to ensure documents actually reach their destination.

2. Who Is Responsible for Serving What?

WAC 162‑08‑041* draws a clear line:

• The Commission serves all orders, notices, and other papers issued by it and any other documents it is legally required to serve.

• Parties are responsible for serving everything they file.

This division keeps the administrative process orderly. The Commission handles official notices; parties handle their own filings.

3. Who Must Be Served?

Every document served by the Commission or any party must be served at the time of filing on:

• All counsel of record

• Any unrepresented parties

• Any designated agents

If a new attorney appears mid‑stream, that attorney must notify all other counsel and unrepresented parties. This prevents the all‑too-common problem of someone being left out of the loop.

4. Serving the Commission Itself

This is a point that often trips people up.

If the Commission is represented by the attorney general (AG) or a staff person (other than the clerk), then service on the Commission must be made on that AG attorney or staff person who is acting for the commission, not on the clerk. Filing something with the clerk does not count as service on the Commission in that situation.

Also important: petitions for judicial review are governed by RCW 34.05.542*, not this WAC.

5. When Service by Mail Is Considered Complete

The rule adopts a predictable, easy‑to‑apply standard:

• Service is deemed complete on the third day after mailing;

• Unless that day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which case it rolls to the next business day.

This “mailbox rule” gives parties a clear timeline and avoids disputes about when a document was actually received.

NOTE: “If service is made by mail, the papers shall be deposited in the post office addressed to the person on whom they are being served, with the postage prepaid.” WAC 162‑08‑041(5)*.

6. Filing Requirements

A document is considered filed when it is actually received at the Commission’s Olympia or Seattle office (or another designated location). It must be accompanied by proof of service on any parties required to be served.

For filings with an administrative law judge, the rule directs parties to file with the clerk at 402 Evergreen Plaza, Mailstop FJ-41, Olympia, WA 98504, unless told otherwise. Required filings must be accompanied by proof of service on all parties required to be served. And the original must be submitted plus two copies.

Conclusion

For lawyers, WAC 162‑08‑041 is a reminder that administrative practice has its own rhythms and expectations. For members of the public pursuing a discrimination complaint, it provides transparency: everyone knows how documents must be exchanged, when deadlines run, and who must be kept informed.

Procedural clarity is part of procedural fairness. When service and filing rules are followed, cases move more smoothly, and parties can focus on the merits rather than procedural missteps.

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

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

March 26, 2026April 25, 2026

Definition of Color (WLAD)

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), what is the definition of “color” when pursing claims of employment discrimination? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Defining “Color” Under Washington Law

Within the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, the term “color” is recognized as a distinct protected characteristic. Although often discussed alongside race, “color” has its own legal meaning and plays an important role in identifying and addressing discriminatory conduct. In general terms, “color” refers to the pigmentation, complexion, or skin tone of an individual.

Distinction Between Color and Race

While race and color are closely related, they are not interchangeable under the law. Race typically refers to broader social or ethnic classifications, whereas color focuses specifically on the shade or tone of a person’s skin. This distinction is significant because discrimination can occur between individuals of the same race based on differences in complexion.

For example, unfavorable treatment of a darker-skinned individual compared to a lighter-skinned individual of the same racial background may constitute unlawful discrimination based on color. Recognizing this nuance allows the law to address more subtle forms of bias that might otherwise go unremedied.

How Color Discrimination Appears in Practice

Color discrimination can arise in many of the same contexts covered by the WLAD, including employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit/insurance transactions. In the workplace, it may involve hiring decisions, promotions, pay disparities, or workplace harassment tied to an individual’s skin tone. In housing, it could manifest as differential treatment in renting or selling property based on complexion.

Importantly, color discrimination is not limited to overt or explicit actions. It may also include patterns of behavior, implicit bias, or policies that disproportionately affect individuals with certain skin tones. As a result, both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence may be relevant in evaluating such claims.

Legal Framework and Enforcement

Claims of discrimination based on color are evaluated under the same general framework as other protected classes under the WLAD. A complainant must typically show that they were treated differently in a context covered by the statute and that their color was a motivating factor in that treatment.

The Washington State Human Rights Commission investigates such claims, assessing whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination. If a violation is established, remedies may include corrective action, damages, policy changes, or other relief designed to address the harm and prevent future misconduct.

Conclusion

Recognizing “color” as an independent protected characteristic under the WLAD, RCW 49.60, strengthens the reach of Washington’s anti-discrimination law. It ensures that individuals are protected not only from broad racial bias but also from unequal treatment based on differences in skin tone—whether across or within racial groups.

For the public, this underscores that the law addresses subtle as well as overt forms of discrimination. For legal practitioners, it highlights the need to evaluate claims with precision, paying close attention to how complexion-based bias may factor into a given set of facts. By expressly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of color, Washington law provides a more complete framework for identifying, addressing, and preventing inequity in everyday life.

LEARN MORE

–gw

March 19, 2026April 25, 2026

The Perils of Plaintiff Dishonesty or Inaccuracy During Litigation

What are the perils of plaintiff dishonesty or inaccuracy during employment-discrimination litigation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Perils of Plaintiff Dishonesty or Inaccuracy During Employment-Discrimination Litigation

Employment discrimination laws provide an essential avenue for workers to challenge unfair treatment based on protected characteristics such as age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or disability. While these laws are powerful, their effectiveness depends on one critical factor: the honesty of the person bringing the claim. For both attorneys and potential plaintiffs, understanding the risks of dishonesty is key to preserving a viable case.

1. Credibility Drives Outcomes

Many employment disputes ultimately turn on whose version of events is believed. Judges and juries routinely weigh competing accounts from employees and employers. If a plaintiff is caught exaggerating or misstating even part of their story, it can taint their entire testimony. Once credibility is compromised, even strong evidence may carry less weight.

2. False Statements Can Trigger Legal Penalties

Providing inaccurate information in a legal proceeding is more than a tactical error—it can have serious consequences. Statements made under oath must be truthful, and knowingly false testimony can expose a plaintiff to perjury claims. Courts may also impose sanctions, dismiss claims, or require payment of the opposing party’s legal fees if misconduct is found.

3. Dishonesty Weakens the Broader System

When individuals misrepresent facts in discrimination cases, the damage extends beyond a single lawsuit. Such conduct can reinforce skepticism toward future claims and make it harder for others with legitimate grievances to be taken seriously. Maintaining honesty helps preserve the credibility of employment protections as a whole.

4. Attorney-Client Relationships Depend on Transparency

Lawyers are ethically prohibited from knowingly presenting false information. If a client withholds material facts or insists on advancing a false narrative, the attorney may have no choice but to withdraw. Open and truthful communication allows counsel to properly evaluate claims, anticipate defenses, and provide effective representation.

5. The Facts Alone Are Often Enough

There is a common but mistaken belief that embellishment strengthens a claim. In reality, consistent and accurate testimony is far more persuasive. Courts recognize that workplace disputes are complex, and plaintiffs are not expected to have perfect recollection. A candid account—supported by documents, communications, and witness testimony—can be highly compelling.

6. Discovery Will Expose Inconsistencies

Modern litigation involves detailed evidence gathering, including emails, personnel files, and sworn depositions. Inconsistencies between a plaintiff’s statements and the documentary record are often uncovered during this process. Once exposed, even small inaccuracies can become central issues that overshadow the underlying claim.

Conclusion

At its core, a successful employment discrimination claim depends on trust—trust in the facts presented and in the person presenting them. Being truthful does more than satisfy a legal obligation; it strengthens the overall case and preserves its legitimacy under scrutiny. When plaintiffs remain accurate and forthcoming, they give decision-makers a solid foundation on which to evaluate their claims. By contrast, any deviation from the truth can quickly shift attention away from the alleged wrongdoing and onto the plaintiff’s credibility, often with damaging results. For both clients and attorneys, a commitment to honesty is not optional—it is fundamental to achieving a fair and just outcome.

LEARN MORE

–gw

February 15, 2026March 26, 2026

Disability-Based Hostile Work Environment

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, how does one establish a disability-based hostile work environment case via circumstantial evidence? 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

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE: DISABILITY-BASED HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT VIA CIRCUMSTANIAL EVIDENCE

To establish a disability-based hostile work environment case via circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by proving:

(1) that the plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the antidiscrimination statute[, WLAD],

(2) that the harassment was unwelcome,

(3) that it was because of the disability,

(4) that it affected the terms and conditions of employment, and

(5) that it was imputable to the employer.

Robel v. Roundup Corporation, 148 Wn.2d 35 (Wash 2002) at 45.

SECOND ELEMENT (UNWELCOME)

To establish that the harassment was unwelcome, “the plaintiff must show that he or she ‘did not solicit or incite it’ and viewed it as ‘undesirable or offensive.'” Id. (citing Glasgow v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 406, 693, P.2d 708 (Wash. 1985)) (hyperlink added).

THIRD ELEMENT (BECAUSE OF DISABILITY)

To establish that the harassment was “because of disability,” requires “[t]hat the disability of the plaintiff-employee be the motivating factor for the unlawful discrimination.” Id. at 46 (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406, 693 P.2d 708)) (alteration in original). This element requires a nexus between the specific harassing conduct and the particular injury or disability. Id.

FOURTH ELEMENT (TERMS & CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT)

To establish that the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, “the harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id. at (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 406, 693 P.2d 708)).

“[A] satisfactory finding on this element should indicate “that the conduct or language complained of was so offensive or pervasive that it could reasonably be expected to alter the conditions of plaintiff’s employment.'” Id. (citing 6A WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CIVIL 330.23, at 240) (alteration in original).

FIFTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO EMPLOYER)

To impute harassment to an employer, “the jury must find either that[:]

(1) an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participate[d] in the harassment or that

(2) the employer … authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonably prompt adequate corrective action.”

Id. at 47 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (second alteration in original) (paragraph formatting added).

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.