LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

June 23, 2022October 21, 2024

Unpaid Contract Wages (WA State)

Under Washington State labor regulations, what are employee remedies for unpaid contract wages? 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

UNPAID CONTRACT WAGES — BLACK LETTER LAW

The applicable law is found under both RCW 49.52.050 and .070 — Rebates of Wages and Civil Liability for Double Damages, respectively. The relevant portions of RCW 49.52.050 state as follows:

[RCW 49.52.050 – Rebates of wages–False records–Penalty.]

Any employer or officer, vice principal or agent of any employer, whether said employer be in private business or an elected public official, who

(1) Shall collect or receive from any employee a rebate of any part of wages theretofore paid by such employer to such employee; or

(2) Willfully and with intent to deprive the employee of any part of his or her wages, shall pay any employee a lower wage than the wage such employer is obligated to pay such employee by any statute, ordinance, or contract[ ] …

…

Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Id. (emphasis and paragraph formatting added). The relevant portions of RCW 49.52.070 state as follows:

[RCW 49.52.070 – Civil liability for double damages.]

Any employer and any officer, vice principal or agent of any employer who shall violate any of the provisions of RCW 49.52.050(1) and (2) shall be liable in a civil action by the aggrieved employee or his or her assignee to judgment for twice the amount of the wages unlawfully rebated or withheld by way of exemplary damages, together with costs of suit and a reasonable sum for attorney’s fees: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the benefits of this section shall not be available to any employee who has knowingly submitted to such violations.

RCW 49.52.070 (emphasis and hyperlink added).

UNPAID CONTRACT WAGES — CASE LAW

The court in Clipse v. Commercial Driver Services, Inc., 189 Wn.App. 776, 358 P.3d 464 (Wash.App. Div. 2 2015), found that RCW 49.52.050(2) prohibits an employer from paying an employee a lower wage than the wage such employer is obligated to pay such employee by any statute, ordinance, or contract. Clipse, 189 Wn.App. at 776 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

The court further determined that RCW 49.52.070 creates civil liability, including double damages, costs, and attorney fees, for violations of RCW 49.52.050. Id.

CONCLUSION

Under Washington State labor regulations, employee remedies for unpaid contract wages can include double damages, costs, and attorney fees.

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.

June 16, 2022December 12, 2024

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (WA State)

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, how does an employee establish a claim of sexual harassment in the workplace? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD): SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE

In Washington State, there are two types of sexual harassment: (a) quid pro quo; and (b) hostile work environment. This article will address hostile work environment.

“To establish a work environment sexual harassment case … an employee must prove the existence of the following [four] elements[ ][:]”

(1) the harassment was unwelcome;

(2) the harassment was because of sex;

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

(4) the harassment is imputed to the employer.

Glasgow v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 406-07 (Wash. 1985) (footnote omitted) (hyperlinks and paragraph formatting added). I will discuss each element in turn.

ELEMENT #1 — THE HARASSMENT WAS UNWELCOME

Under the first element, the employee must prove that the harassment was unwelcome. Thus, “[i]n order to constitute harassment, the complained of conduct must be unwelcome in the sense that the plaintiff-employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the further sense that the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive.” Id. at 406.

ELEMENT #2 — THE HARASSMENT WAS BECAUSE OF SEX

The second element of a claim of sexual harassment in the workplace requires the employee show that the harassment was because of sex/gender. “The question to be answered here is: would the employee have been singled out and caused to suffer the harassment if the employee had been of a different sex? This statutory criterion requires that the gender of the plaintiff-employee be the motivating factor for the unlawful discrimination.” Id.

ELEMENT #3 — THE HARASSMENT AFFECTED THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

Pursuant to the third element, the employee must prove that the sexual harassment affected the terms or conditions of employment. “Casual, isolated or trivial manifestations of a discriminatory environment do not affect the terms or conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate the law.” Id. “The harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id.

TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES TEST: Washington State courts typically look at the totality of the circumstances to evaluate this element. “Whether the harassment at the workplace is sufficiently severe and persistent to seriously affect the emotional or psychological well being of an employee is a question to be determined with regard to the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 406-07.

ELEMENT #4 — THE HARASSMENT IS IMPUTED TO THE EMPLOYER

The final element requires the employee to show the harassment is imputable to the employer; this will depend on the classification of the harassing individual.

(a) Where Owner, Manager, Partner, or Corporate Officer Harasses

“Where an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participates in the harassment, this element is met by such proof.” Id. at 407.

(b) Where Supervisors or Co-Workers Harass

“To hold an employer responsible for the discriminatory work environment created by a plaintiff’s supervisor(s) or co-worker(s), the employee must show that the employer[:]

(a) authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and

(b) failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.

Id. (emphasis and paragraph formatting added). “This may be shown by proving[:]

(a) that complaints were made to the employer through higher managerial or supervisory personnel or by proving such a pervasiveness of sexual harassment at the work place as to create an inference of the employer’s knowledge or constructive knowledge of it and

(b) that the employer’s remedial action was not of such nature as to have been reasonably calculated to end the harassment.

Id. (paragraph formatting and emphasis added).

HOW THE EMPLOYER MAY AVOID LIABILITY

Under WLAD, “an employer may ordinarily avoid liability for sexual harassment by taking prompt and adequate corrective action when it learns that an employee is being sexually harassed.” Glasgow v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 408 (Wash. 1985) (hyperlink 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 Washington Law Against Discrimination] 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 Prima Facie Case*

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)

Sexual Harassment Policy Requirements for Specific WA Employers

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

June 9, 2022October 21, 2024

The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment

Under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what is the prima facie case for disparate treatment discrimination? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE: DISPARATE TREATMENT

Under the WLAD, disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that “occurs when an employer treats some people less favorably than others because of race, color, religion, sex, [disability], [age], or other protected status.” Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC, 178 Wn.App. 734, 743 (Div. 2 2013) (citing Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co., 162 Wn.2d 340, 354 n. 7, 172 P.3d 688 (2007)) (hyperlinks added).

“To establish a prima facie case of … discrimination based on disparate treatment, an employee must show that[:]

(1) the employee belongs to a protected class;

(2) the employer treated the employee less favorably in the terms or conditions of employment

(3) than a similarly situated, nonprotected employee,

(4) who does substantially the same work.

Davis v. West One Automotive Group, 140 Wn.App. 449, 458-59 (Div. 3 2007), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1039 (Wash. 2008) (citing Washington v. Boeing Co., 105 Wash.App. 1, 13, 19 P.3d 1041 (2000) (quoting Johnson v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 80 Wash.App. 212, 227, 907 P.2d 1223 (1996))).

EXAMPLE: DAVIS v. WEST ONE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP

In Davis v. West One Automotive Group, “Davis, an African American, was hired as a salesman for West One in February 2005 and terminated in July 2005.” Id. at 453. “After he was terminated[ ][:]

he brought this action under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter 49.60 RCW, alleging hostile work environment, disparate treatment and retaliatory discharge. The trial court granted West One’s motion for summary judgment dismissal. Mr. Davis appeal[ed].

Id. at 452.

Thereafter, the Washington State Court of Appeals (division 3) determined that plaintiff Davis established a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on the following three specific instances of disparate treatment:

[The Newspaper Photo]

[1] First he claims his picture was not put in the paper when he was salesman of the month, as was custom. West One claims this was a mistake. Mr. Davis testified that when he brought the mistake to West One’s attention, it refused to correct the error by placing his picture in the paper. Whether West One’s actions were a mere mistake or support a claim of disparate treatment is a disputed question of fact.

[The Vehicle]

[2] Mr. Davis next alleges he was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees because he was not permitted to drive any car he wanted as salesman of the month, though [a fellow sales employee] was always permitted to do so. When Mr. Davis was salesman of the month, he elected to drive a BMW. When he took the BMW, he was told to return it for service. There is a factual dispute about whether service was necessary. This dispute presents a question of fact for a jury.

[The Unfair Discipline]

[3] Mr. Davis claims he was held to a higher standard than other employees; he was disciplined more harshly for missing work and being late than were his co-workers. West One disputes this claim. There is conflicting evidence as to the tardiness and truancy of Mr. Davis and other employees, and as to West One’s tolerance, or not, of this behavior.

On this record summary judgment was not appropriate.

Id. at 459 (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held, “We reverse the superior court’s order granting summary judgment dismissal of Mr. Davis’s disparate treatment claim.” Id.

WLAD REMEDIES

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Definition of Prima Facie Case**

» Disparate Treatment

» Disparate Treatment: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification**

» Disparate Treatment vs. Disparate Impact Discrimination**

» Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment**

» McDonnell Douglas Framework (Step 1): The Prima Facie Case**

» Prima Facie Case: The Replacement Element**

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment via Direct Evidence

» WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

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

LEARN MORE

June 2, 2022October 21, 2024

Retaliatory Discharge (WA State)

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, how does one establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

RETALIATORY DISCHARGE (WA STATE): THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

“In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, … [a plaintiff] must show[:]

(1) he engaged in a statutorily protected activity;

(2) he was discharged or had some adverse employment action taken against him; and

(3) retaliation was a substantial motive behind the adverse employment action.

Davis v. West One Automotive Group, 140 Wn.App. 449, 460 (Div. 3 2007), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1039 (Wash. 2008) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis, hyperlinks, and paragraph formatting added).

EXAMPLE: DAVIS v. WEST ONE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP

In Davis v. West One Automotive Group, the Washington State Court of Appeals (division 3) determined that plaintiff Davis established a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge based, in part, on the following:

[1] … Davis, an African American, was hired as a salesman for West One in February 2005 and terminated in July 2005.

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

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

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

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

[6] [A] [f]ellow sales employee … also made comments that Mr. Davis found racially offensive. On an occasion when Mr. Davis had customers in the finance office and his telephone rang, … [the co-worker] stopped him from answering stating, “Hey, Buckwheat, you can’t get that call.” Mr. Davis was offended and asked … [the co-worker] to refer to him by name.

…

[7] Mr. Davis complained to West One Human Resources about … [his co-worker’s] “Buckwheat” comment. No disciplinary action was taken.

[8] At a subsequent staff meeting, [Mr. Davis’ supervisor] discussed generally with the entire staff that, “no use of any type of insensitive name, nickname or not, would be tolerated.”

[9] Because no action had been taken against … [Mr. Davis’ co-worker] and because he regarded … [his supervisor] as “the worst offender of racial discrimination,” Mr. Davis did not complain again.

Id. at 453-54 (internal citations omitted).

In the Court of Appeals, “Mr. Davis claim[ed] he was fired for reporting hostile work environment.” Id. at 460 (hyperlink added). The Court considered, inter alia, the foregoing facts and found, in part, as follows:

This is a protected activity covered by statute and his termination qualifies as an adverse employment action. It is unclear if retaliation was a substantial motive behind the termination. The evidence presented at summary judgment would support a finding either way on the causation issue. This is a jury question.

Id. (internal citations omitted). Thus, the Court determined that plaintiff Davis established a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge and–after applying the McDonnel Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework–concluded that “Summary judgment dismissal of Mr. Davis’s … claim was not appropriate.” Id. at 461.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

Definition of Prima Facie Case**

McDonnel Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework**

The Prima Facie Case: Discriminatory Discharge

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

Top-3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Top-3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Wrongful Termination

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

LEARN MORE

May 26, 2022October 21, 2024

Hostile Work Environment: Terms or Conditions of Employment

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

Advertisement

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

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

(1) the harassment was unwelcome,

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

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

(4) the harassment is imputable to the employer.

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

ELEMENT 3: TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

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

Totality of the Circumstances Test

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

EXAMPLE: DAVIS v. WEST ONE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP

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

Therein:

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

…

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOTALITY-OF-THE-CIRCUMSTANCES

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

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

Definition of Prima Facie Case**

Disability-Based Hostile Work Environment

Harassment & Terms or Conditions of Employment: A Closer Look

Hostile Work Environment: Imputing Harassment to Employer

Hostile Work Environment: Terms or Conditions of Employment

Hostile Work Environment: The Unwelcome Element

McDonnel Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework**

Protected Classes

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (WA State)

The Prima Facie Case: Hostile Work Environment

Top 3 Hostile Work Environment Issues

WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

WLAD: Imputing Harassment to Employers**

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

LEARN MORE

May 6, 2022October 21, 2024

The Right to Inspect Your Personnel File (WA State)

Under Washington State laws, does an employee have a right to inspect their own personnel file? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

RELEVANT LAW

According to Washington State law: “Every employer shall, at least annually, upon the request of an employee, permit that employee to inspect any or all of his or her own personnel file(s).” RCW 49.12.240.

DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this article–and pursuant to the Washington State Industrial Welfare laws–the following definitions for “employer” and “employee” apply:

[DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER]

…

(b) On and after May 20, 2003, ‘employer‘ means any person, firm, corporation, partnership, business trust, legal representative, or other business entity which engages in any business, industry, profession, or activity in this state and employs one or more employees, and includes the state, any state institution, state agency, political subdivisions of the state, and any municipal corporation or quasi-municipal corporation.

However, this chapter and the rules adopted thereunder apply to these public employers only to the extent that this chapter and the rules adopted thereunder do not conflict with:

(i) Any state statute or rule; and

(ii) respect to political subdivisions of the state and any municipal or quasi-municipal corporation, any local resolution, ordinance, or rule adopted under the authority of the local legislative authority before April 1, 2003.

RCW 49.12.005(3)(b), (4) (paragraph formatting and hyperlinks added). The definition of “employee” follows:

[DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE]

…

(4) “Employee” means an employee who is employed in the business of the employee’s employer whether by way of manual labor or otherwise. “Employee” does not include an individual who is at least sixteen years old but under twenty-one years old, in his or her capacity as a player for a junior ice hockey team that is a member of a regional, national, or international league and that contracts with an arena owned, operated, or managed by a public facilities district created under chapter 36.100 RCW.

RCW 49.12.005(4) (paragraph formatting and first hyperlink added).

CONCLUSION

Under Washington State laws, an employer must allow an employee to inspect their own personnel file upon request. Such inspections may occur at least annually.

LEARN MORE

March 24, 2022October 21, 2024

Employee-Handbook Liability

Employment Contracts and At-Will Employment

Under Washington State laws, are employee-handbook promises enforceable, when they address specific treatment in specific situations on which an employee justifiably relies? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

THE AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT DOCTRINE

“Generally, an employment contract indefinite in duration is terminable at will.” Mikkelsen v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Kittitas County, 189 Wn.2d 516, 540 (Wash. 2017) (citing Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219, 223, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984)). According to the “at-will” doctrine, an employer can discharge an at-will employee for no cause, good cause or even cause morally wrong without fear of liability. See Ford v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 146 Wn.2d 146, 152, 43 P.3d 1223, (Wash. 2002) (citing Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219, 226, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Conversely, an employee has the absolute right to quit his or her employment at-will. See id. However, there are three recognized exceptions to the general at-will employment rule: (1) Statutory; (2) Judicial and; (3) Contractual.

EXCEPTION TO THE AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT DOCTRINE: EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS: PROMISES OF SPECIFIC TREATMENT IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS

“[U]nder certain circumstances, employers may be obligated to act in accordance with policies as announced in handbooks issued to their employees.” Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 539-40 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). For example, “if the employer has made promises of specific treatment in specific situations on which the employee justifiably relies, those promises are enforceable and may modify an employee’s at-will status.” Id. at 540 (internal citation omitted).

ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY

“Under this theory, [a plaintiff] … must show [the following:]

[a)] … that a statement (or statements) in an employee manual or handbook or similar document amounts to a promise of specific treatment in specific situations, …

[b)] that the employee justifiably relied on the promise, and …

[c)] that the promise was breached.

Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (paragraph formatting added).

CONSIDERATIONS

1. The Crucial Question

“[T]he crucial question is whether the employee has a reasonable expectation the employer will follow the discipline procedure, based upon the language used in stating the procedure and the pattern of practice in the workplace.” Id. (internal citation omitted) (alteration in original).

2. Questions of Fact

“[W]hether an employment policy manual issued by an employer contains a promise of specific treatment in specific situations, whether the employee justifiably relied on the promise, and whether the promise was breached are questions of fact.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Therefore, summary judgment is proper only if reasonable minds could not differ in resolving these questions.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

3. Ambiguous Discipline Policies Create Issue of Fact

“The Court of Appeals has held that ambiguous discipline policies create an issue of fact as to whether the employer made a binding promise to follow certain discipline procedures.” Id. at 543 (internal citations omitted).

4. Summary Judgment May Not Be Appropriate When Discretionary Language Negated by Other Representations

“[T]he presence of discretionary language may not be sufficient for summary judgment when other representations negate that language.” Id. at 544 (referencing, e.g., Swanson v. Liquid Air Corp., 118 Wn.2d 512, 532, 826 P.2d 664 (1992) (“We reject the premise that this disclaimer can, as a matter of law, effectively serve as an eternal escape hatch for an employer who may then make whatever unenforceable promises of working conditions it is to its benefit to make.”)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

CONCLUSION

Under the Washington State law, “if the employer has made promises of specific treatment in specific situations on which the employee justifiably relies, those promises are enforceable and may modify an employee’s at-will status.” Mikkelsen v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Kittitas County, 189 Wn.2d 516, 540 (Wash. 2017) (internal citations omitted).

RELATED: Read more about this topic by viewing our article entitled: Unenforceable Employment-Contract Provisions and Discrimination Claims (the link will redirect the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog — an external website).

LEARN MORE

March 17, 2022October 21, 2024

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

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

Advertisement

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION: THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

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

(1) the employee took a statutorily protected action,

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

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

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

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

ELEMENT #2: ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION

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

-Federal Law

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

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

-Ninth Circuit

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

-U.S. Supreme Court

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Adverse Employment Actions: A Closer Look

Definition of Prima Facie Case*

Employment-Discrimination Hotlines & Unlawful Retaliation

The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

Top 3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

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

LEARN MORE

March 16, 2022October 21, 2024

Unlawful Employment Practices: HIV or hepatitis C infections

Employment Discrimination: HIV or Hepatitis C Infections

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

Advertisement

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

The WLAD is a potent statute enacted in 1949, and it covers a broad array of categories, including the following:

Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of civil rights.

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

(c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without discrimination, including discrimination against families with children;

(d) The right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination;

(e) The right to engage in insurance transactions or transactions with health maintenance organizations without discrimination: PROVIDED, That a practice which is not unlawful under RCW 48.30.300, 48.44.220, or 48.46.370 does not constitute an unfair practice for the purposes of this subparagraph;

(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists … ; and

(g) The right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.

RCW 49.60.030(1) (emphasis and first paragraph hyperlinks added). The WLAD protects, inter alia, employees from the unfair practices of employers.

UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES: EMPLOYEES WITH HIV OR HEPATITIS C INFECTIONS

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

Unfair practices with respect to HIV or hepatitis C infection.

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

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

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

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

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

RCW 49.60.172 (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

WLAD REMEDIES

Victims of discrimination in violation of the WLAD may seek generous remedies. “Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in violation of … [the WLAD] shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.).” RCW 49.60.030(2).

Employer Liability for Nonemployee Harassment

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), can an employer be held liable for nonemployee harassment? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

EMPLOYMENT

In Washington State, “[t]he right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to … [t]he right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination[.]” RCW 49.60.030(1)(a).

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (HARASSMENT)

Under the WLAD, certain employers are prohibited from engaging in specific unfair practices in employment. The relevant hostile-work-environment (harassment) law states as follows:

It is an unfair practice for any employer:

…

(3) To discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability[.]

RCW 49.60.180(3). “Under RCW 49.60.030(2), a person discriminated against in violation of the WLAD may bring a civil action.” Larose v. King Cnty., 8 Wash.App.2d 90, 104, 437 P.3d 701 (Wash.App. 2019) (hyperlink added).

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

“To establish a prima facie claim of a hostile work environment the plaintiff must show that:

(1) the harassment was unwelcome,

(2) the harassment was because of … [membership in a protected class],

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

(4) the harassment is imputable to the employer.

See id. (citing Antonius v. King County, 153 Wash.2d 256, 261, 103 P.3d 729 (2004)) (hyperlinks and paragraph formatting added).

THE FOURTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO THE EMPLOYER)

When it comes to nonemployee harassment, the issue is whether the harassment can be imputed to the employer. “[H]arassment will be imputed to the employer if an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participates.” Larose, 8 Wash.App.2d at 105 (citing Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 103 Wash.2d 401, 407, 693 P.2d 708 (1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “An employer will be responsible for harassment by the plaintiff’s supervisors or coworkers if the employer (a) authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and (b) failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.” Id. (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 407) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“A plaintiff can establish knowledge and failure to take adequate corrective action by showing (a) that complaints were made to the employer through higher managerial or supervisory personnel or by proving such a pervasiveness of sexual harassment at the workplace as to create an inference of the employer’s knowledge or constructive knowledge of it and (b) that the employer’s remedial action was not of such nature as to have been reasonably calculated to end the harassment.” Id. (citing Glasgow, 103 Wash.2d at 407) (internal quotation marks omitted).

EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR NONEMPLOYEE HARASSMENT

In 2019, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2, adopted the federal rule and concluded “that a nonemployee’s harassment of an employee in the workplace will be imputed to an employer if the employer[:]

(a) authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and

(b) failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.

Id. at 111, (internal citations omitted).

CONCLUSION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60, “an employer may be subject to liability for a hostile work environment claim based on a nonemployee’s harassment of an employee in the workplace[ ][,]” under certain circumstances.

UNPAID CONTRACT WAGES — BLACK LETTER LAW

[RCW 49.52.050 – Rebates of wages–False records–Penalty.]

[RCW 49.52.070 – Civil liability for double damages.]

UNPAID CONTRACT WAGES — CASE LAW

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD): SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE

ELEMENT #1 — THE HARASSMENT WAS UNWELCOME

ELEMENT #2 — THE HARASSMENT WAS BECAUSE OF SEX

ELEMENT #3 — THE HARASSMENT AFFECTED THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

ELEMENT #4 — THE HARASSMENT IS IMPUTED TO THE EMPLOYER

HOW THE EMPLOYER MAY AVOID LIABILITY

WLAD REMEDIES

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE: DISPARATE TREATMENT

EXAMPLE: DAVIS v. WEST ONE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP

[The Newspaper Photo]

[The Vehicle]

[The Unfair Discipline]

WLAD REMEDIES

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

RETALIATORY DISCHARGE (WA STATE): THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

EXAMPLE: DAVIS v. WEST ONE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

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

ELEMENT 3: TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

Totality of the Circumstances Test

EXAMPLE: DAVIS v. WEST ONE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP

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

TOTALITY-OF-THE-CIRCUMSTANCES

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

RELEVANT LAW

DEFINITIONS

[DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER]

[DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE]

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE

THE AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT DOCTRINE

EXCEPTION TO THE AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT DOCTRINE: EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS: PROMISES OF SPECIFIC TREATMENT IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS

ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY

CONSIDERATIONS

1. The Crucial Question

2. Questions of Fact

3. Ambiguous Discipline Policies Create Issue of Fact

4. Summary Judgment May Not Be Appropriate When Discretionary Language Negated by Other Representations

CONCLUSION

RELATED: Read more about this topic by viewing our article entitled: Unenforceable Employment-Contract Provisions and Discrimination Claims (the link will redirect the reader to our Williams Law Group Blog — an external website).

LEARN MORE

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION: THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

ELEMENT #2: ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION

-Federal Law

-Ninth Circuit

-U.S. Supreme Court

CONCLUSION

READ MORE ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES: EMPLOYEES WITH HIV OR HEPATITIS C INFECTIONS

WLAD REMEDIES

READ MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC

need help?

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (WLAD)

EMPLOYMENT

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (HARASSMENT)

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

THE FOURTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO THE EMPLOYER)

EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR NONEMPLOYEE HARASSMENT

CONCLUSION

READ MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC

need help?