LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

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.

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

Advertisement

When 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

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 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.

January 8, 2026January 8, 2026

Harmful Employment-Law Idioms: “Playing the Race Card”

Harmful Employment-Law Idioms: "Playing the Race Card"

Why is the idiom “playing the race card” harmful for employment-discrimination victims? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Why “Playing the Race Card” Is a Harmful Idiom—and Shouldn’t Deter Employees in Washington State from Seeking Justice

In today’s workplaces, discussions about race and discrimination remain highly sensitive—and sometimes even controversial. Unfortunately, one phrase often used to undermine these conversations is the idiom “playing the race card.” Though it may seem like a casual expression, this phrase carries derogatory connotations and can have a chilling effect on individuals experiencing racial discrimination.

For employees in Washington State facing unfair treatment based on race, it’s essential to understand that seeking legal help is not only your right—it can be a necessary step in protecting yourself and improving workplace equity for everyone.

The Problem with “Playing the Race Card”

At its core, the idiom “playing the race card” implies that someone is opportunistically or manipulatively invoking their race to gain an advantage or excuse poor behavior. This notion casts doubt on the legitimacy of racial discrimination claims and frames the accuser as disingenuous.

This phrase is problematic for several reasons:

1. It Delegitimizes Genuine Concerns: Using this idiom suggests that raising concerns about racism is inherently suspect or dishonest. This mindset undermines the very real, and often well-documented, existence of racial bias in employment decisions such as hiring, promotions, compensation, and termination.

2. It Discourages Reporting: When people fear being accused of “playing the race card,” they may hesitate to come forward with valid claims. This reluctance allows discriminatory practices to persist unchecked.

3. It Perpetuates Systemic Inequality: Framing race-based complaints as exaggerated or attention-seeking minimizes the systemic nature of racism and prevents meaningful dialogue or change.

Know Your Rights in Washington State

Washington State has some of the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the country. Under both state and federal law, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee or job applicant based on certain protected classes including, but not limited to, race.

If you believe that your employer has treated you unfairly because of your race, you have the right to file a complaint and pursue legal recourse. This may include:

» Unequal pay or benefits

» Disparate impact

» Disparate treatment

» Harassment or hostile work environment

» Wrongful termination or demotion

» Retaliation for reporting discrimination

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) provides legal protection for workers and allows victims to seek remedies such as reinstatement, back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, and attorney’s fees.

Why Speaking to an Employment Attorney Matters

Racial discrimination in the workplace is not always blatant. It can take subtle forms—like being passed over for promotions, consistently receiving worse assignments, or enduring offhand remarks that create a hostile environment. An experienced employment attorney can help assess your situation, gather evidence, and advise you on the best path forward.

Crucially, consulting a lawyer sends a clear message: you are not “playing” at anything—you are asserting your legal rights under the law.

Moving Beyond the Stigma

Challenging racial bias isn’t easy, and it often comes with emotional and professional risks. But phrases like “playing the race card” should not be allowed to shame or silence those who have the courage to speak out.

If you’re experiencing discrimination in your workplace, know that your concerns are valid. You don’t have to tolerate unfair treatment, and you’re not alone. Protect your rights. Seek legal guidance. And remember: justice begins with the decision to stand up and be heard.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

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

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

» What is WA State’s Law Against Employment Discrimination?

LEARN MORE

–gw

January 8, 2026January 8, 2026

WSHRC: Reconsideration of Findings

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

Advertisement

When Agencies Get a Second Look: Understanding WAC 162-08-101

Administrative agencies make decisions every day that affect real people—patrons, guests, employees, employers, landlords, tenants, and organizations across Washington State. But what happens when an agency discovers that a decision may be based on a mistake?

Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 162-08-101*, titled “Reconsideration of findings,” provides a concise but important answer:

“The commission may reconsider and correct any finding in which errors affecting the result are brought to its attention.”

Id. (emphasis added). Though brief, this provision plays a significant role in ensuring fairness, accuracy, and trust in administrative decision-making by the Washington State Human Rights Commission.

What Is WAC 162-08-101 About?

At its core, WAC 162-08-101* gives the Commission the authority to revisit its own findings when a meaningful error is identified—and when that error could have changed the outcome. This reflects a practical acknowledgment: even careful investigations and decisions can sometimes be affected by mistakes, and there should be a mechanism to fix them.

Key Elements of the Rule

The essential components of the rule follow:

1. “The commission may reconsider”

The word “may” is important. Reconsideration is discretionary, not automatic. The Commission is permitted—but not required—to revisit a finding once an error is raised.

For practitioners, this signals that reconsideration is a request, not a right, and should be supported with clear reasoning and evidence.

2. “and correct any finding”

The focus here is on correction, not punishment or reversal for its own sake. If an error is confirmed, the Commission has the authority to fix the finding to reflect what the result should have been without the mistake.

This promotes administrative efficiency by allowing the agency to self-correct rather than forcing parties into prolonged appeals or litigation.

3. “in which errors affecting the result are brought to its attention”

Not all errors qualify. The rule applies only when:

• An error exists, and

• The error affects the outcome, not merely a minor detail.

For example:

• A typo in a date that has no impact on the analysis likely would not qualify.

• A misinterpretation of evidence, a misapplied legal standard, or omitted key facts that influenced the conclusion likely would.

The burden is on the party raising the issue to clearly explain why the error matters.

KEY IMPLICATIONS

For the General Public

If you are involved in a discrimination complaint or investigation, WAC 162-08-101* offers reassurance that the process is not rigidly final in the face of genuine mistakes. It reflects a commitment to fairness over formality.

For Legal Professionals

For attorneys, advocates, and compliance officers, this provision creates a strategic opportunity:

• It may allow for correction without formal appeal.

• It encourages early identification and documentation of substantive errors.

• It reinforces the importance of precision in administrative records and findings.

What This Rule Does Not Do

Equally important are its limits:

• It does not guarantee reconsideration.

• It does not apply to disagreements over judgment or credibility unless tied to a demonstrable error.

• It does not replace judicial review or statutory appeal rights.

In other words, WAC 162-08-101* is a narrow corrective tool, not a second bite at the apple.

In Summary

WAC 162-08-101* may be only a single sentence long, but it embodies an important principle of administrative justice: accuracy matters, and agencies should be able to correct meaningful mistakes.

For the public, it builds confidence in the system. For legal professionals, it provides a valuable—if carefully constrained—procedural safeguard. In a system built on fairness, the ability to reconsider when it truly counts is not a weakness; it’s a strength.

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

» WA State Human Rights Commission Complaints

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

» WSHRC: From Complaint to Conclusion

» WSHRC: Organization and Operations

» WSHRC: Relationship of Commission to Complainant

» WSHRC: Withdrawal of Complaint

LEARN MORE

–gw

January 1, 2026January 1, 2026

Employment Discrimination Based Upon Cannabis Use (WA State)

Under Washington State law, may employers discrimination against job candidates based on cannabis use? Here’s my point of view.

Washington’s Cannabis Hiring Law: What Employers and Applicants Need to Know

Washington State has taken a distinctive step in aligning employment practices with the legalization of cannabis. RCW 49.44.240*, effective January 1, 2024, limits how employers may use cannabis-related information in initial hiring decisions—while preserving important safety and federal-law exceptions. (NOTE: For purposes of RCW 49.44.240, “‘cannabis’ has the meaning provided in RCW 69.50.101*.”)

The Core Rule

At its heart, the statute makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire someone based solely on either of two things:

1. the applicant’s lawful, off-duty cannabis use away from the workplace; or

2. a preemployment drug test that detects “nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites in their hair, blood, urine, or other bodily fluids.”

See RCW 49.44.240* (emphasis added). This distinction matters. Nonpsychoactive metabolites can remain in the body long after any intoxicating effects have worn off. The law recognizes that such results say little about an applicant’s current impairment or fitness for work.

Importantly, the protection applies only to initial hiring. The statute does not address discipline or termination of current employees.

What the Law Does Not Do

RCW 49.44.240* is not a blanket ban on drug testing, nor does it require employers to tolerate impairment at work.

Employers may still:

• Use scientifically valid drug tests that do not screen for nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites (for example, tests designed to detect recent impairment rather than past use);

• Enforce drug- and alcohol-free workplace policies, especially where required by federal law or regulation;

• Conduct post-accident testing or testing based on reasonable suspicion of impairment; and

• Test for controlled substances other than cannabis as permitted by law.

The statute also expressly does not override state or federal laws that mandate testing as a condition of employment, licensing, federal funding, or federal contracts. In addition, employers may require broad-spectrum drug testing through third parties, so long as cannabis results are withheld from the employer and not used in hiring decisions.

Who Is Excluded

The law includes a detailed list of positions to which these protections do not apply. These include roles that implicate public safety, federal oversight, or heightened risk, such as:

(a) A position requiring a federal government background investigation or security clearance;

(b) A position with a general authority Washington law enforcement agency as defined in RCW 10.93.020*;

(c) A position with a fire department, fire protection district, or regional fire protection service authority;

(d) A position as a first responder not included under (b) or (c) of this subsection, including a dispatcher position with a public or private 911 emergency communications system or a position responsible for the provision of emergency medical services;

(e) A position as a corrections officer with a jail, detention facility, or the department of corrections, including any position directly responsible for the custody, safety, and security of persons confined in those facilities;

(f) A position in the airline or aerospace industries; or

(g) A safety sensitive position for which impairment while working presents a substantial risk of death. Such safety sensitive positions must be identified by the employer prior to the applicant’s application for employment.

RCW 49.44.240* (emphasis added). For these jobs, employers may continue to consider cannabis test results in preemployment screening.

Implications

For applicants, RCW 49.44.240* provides reassurance that lawful, off-duty cannabis use—by itself—should not bar access to many jobs in Washington. For employers, the statute requires a careful review of hiring policies, drug-testing methods, and job classifications to ensure compliance.

The takeaway is not that cannabis is irrelevant in the workplace, but that Washington law draws a clear line between past, lawful use and on-the-job safety and impairment. Navigating that line thoughtfully is now a key part of lawful hiring in the state.

LEARN MORE

–gw

December 18, 2025December 18, 2025

Is Washington State an at-will employment state?

Advertisement

Is Washington State an at-will employment state?

answer:

Washington has been an “at-will” employment state since at least 1928. See Ford v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 146 Wn.2d 146, 152, 43 P.3d 1223, (Wash. 2002) (referencing Davidson v. Mackall-Paine Veneer Co., 149 Wash. 685, 688, 271 P. 878 (1928); see also Prescott v. Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co., 40 Wash. 354, 357, 82 P. 606 (1905) (Mount, C.J., dissenting) (“where [an employment] contract is general and for an indefinite time, it is terminable at will.”)).

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 id. (citing Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219, 226, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Conversely, in the absence of a contract stating otherwise, an employee has the absolute right to abandon … [their] employment at-will.” See id.

However, there are three recognized exceptions to the general at-will employment doctrine: (1) Statutory; (2) Judicial and; (3) Contractual.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

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

» 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?

» What Qualifies as Wrongful Termination in Washington?

» WLAD: The Discriminatory Discharge Provision*

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.

December 4, 2025December 4, 2025

Employment Law 101: Statute of Limitations

Under Washington State laws, what is the meaning of “statute of limitations” within the context of civil litigation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Introduction: Statute of Limitations

Within the context of Washington State civil litigation, the concept of the statute of limitations serves as an essential thread that weaves together justice, fairness, and practicality. Rooted in the belief that legal actions should be pursued within a reasonable timeframe, the statute of limitations imposes a temporal boundary on the initiation of lawsuits. This legal doctrine aims to strike a delicate balance between the need for timely resolution and the preservation of fundamental fairness. In this article, I will define the term, address its key principles, and discuss exceptions and tolling.

Defining Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations is a legal principle that dictates the maximum time allowed for a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit or legal action against a defendant. Its primary purpose is to ensure that legal disputes are resolved promptly, avoiding the complications that arise from the passage of time, such as fading memories, lost evidence, and changes in circumstances.

Statutes of limitations can vary depending on the legal theory; to learn about the statute of limitations for employment discrimination claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), we invite you to read our article entitled: WLAD Statute of Limitations.

Key Principles

1. Preserving Evidence and Witness Testimony:

The statute of limitations acts as a safeguard against the deterioration of evidence and witness testimony over time. It recognizes the inherent challenges of litigating a case where memories may fade, documents may be lost, and witnesses may become unavailable.

2. Promoting Judicial Efficiency:

Efficiency is a cornerstone of the American legal system, and the statute of limitations plays a vital role in achieving this goal. By encouraging prompt legal action, it helps prevent the clogging of court dockets with stale claims, allowing the legal system to focus on resolving current and pressing issues.

3. Balancing Fairness and Finality:

The statute of limitations embodies the principle of fairness by providing a degree of legal certainty for potential defendants. Once the prescribed time limit has passed, individuals and entities can reasonably expect to be free from the threat of litigation related to a particular incident, promoting finality in legal matters.

Exceptions and Tolling

While the statute of limitations is generally rigid, exceptions and tolling provisions exist. These may include circumstances such as the discovery of fraud or the minority of the plaintiff at the time of the incident, which can extend the time frame within which legal action can be initiated. To learn more about tolling the statute of limitations for employment discrimination claims under the WLAD, we invite you to read our article entitled: WLAD Statute of Limitations: Equitable Tolling.

Conclusion

The statute of limitations serves as a guardian of justice, ensuring that legal disputes are resolved in a timely manner while balancing the interests of both plaintiffs and defendants. Understanding the nuances of these temporal boundaries is vital for anyone handling lawsuits or legal actions, highlighting the intricate interplay between fairness, efficiency, and the pursuit of justice within the bounds of time.