FAQ: What is constructive termination in WA State?
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
What is constructive termination in WA State?
answer:
In WA State, a constructive termination (or discharge) arises “where an employerdeliberately makes an employee‘s working conditions intolerable, thereby forcing the employee to resign.” Sneed v. Barna, 80 Wash. App. 843, 849-50, 912 P.2d 1035, review denied, 129 Wash.2d 1023, 919 P.2d 600 (1996) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).
The term “deliberately” entails a deliberate act or a pattern of conduct “of the employer creating the intolerable condition, without regard to the employer’s mental state as to the resulting consequence.” Sneed, 80 Wash.App. at 849-50; Barnett v. Sequim Valley Ranch, LLC, 174 Wn.App. 475, 485, 302 P.3d 500 (Div. 2 2013) (internal citation omitted).
INTOLERABLE WORKING CONDITIONS
Typically, the question of “whether working conditions have risen to an ‘intolerable’ level is a factual question for the jury.” Sneed, 80 Wash.App. at 849 (internal citations omitted). Often, the courts will “look for evidence of either ‘aggravating circumstances’ or a ‘continuous pattern of discriminatory treatment’ to support a constructive discharge claim.” Id. at 850 (internal citations omitted).
THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED (OBJECTIVE STANDARD)
The question to be answered is “whether working conditions would have been so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee’s shoes would have felt compelled to resign.” Id. at 849 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “This is an objective standard and an employee’s subjective belief that he had no choice but to resign is irrelevant.” Barnett, 174 Wn.App. at 485 (citing Travis v. Tacoma Pub. Sch. Dist., 120 Wash.App. 542, 551, 85 P.3d 959 (2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Under the rules of logic, what does the “straw man fallacy” 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
The Straw Man Fallacy: A Common Misstep in Argument and Advocacy
When an Argument Is Not the Real Argument
Most people have experienced a conversation where their position was misunderstood—or perhaps rephrased into something they never intended to say. When that altered version becomes the target of criticism, the discussion may involve what logicians call a “straw man fallacy.”
A straw man fallacy arises when a person responds to a modified, exaggerated, or oversimplified version of another person’s argument instead of addressing the argument itself. The result is often an easier debate to win, but a less honest one.
Rather than engaging with the actual point under discussion, the speaker attacks a substitute version that bears only a partial resemblance to the original position.
video Example: the Straw man fallacy
A Practical Illustration
Imagine that a community member proposes additional funding for park maintenance and recreational facilities. Another participant responds by arguing that spending taxpayer money on parks is irresponsible because “some people want the government to spend money on nothing but recreation.”
The original proposal was limited and specific. The response transformed it into a broader and more extreme claim. By challenging the altered version rather than the actual proposal, the discussion shifts away from the real issue.
This is the essence of a straw man argument.
Why It Matters Outside the Courtroom
The straw man fallacy appears frequently in public discourse. It can be found in political debates, social media exchanges, workplace discussions, and even ordinary conversations among friends and family.
The danger is not simply that the argument is flawed. A straw man can prevent meaningful discussion by causing participants to debate positions that no one actually holds. As a result, important issues may remain unresolved while attention is diverted to a manufactured controversy.
Recognizing this form of faulty reasoning helps people evaluate arguments more carefully and encourages fairer dialogue.
The Term’s Role in Legal Practice
Lawyers regularly use the phrase “straw man” when they believe an opposing party has inaccurately characterized a claim, defense, or legal position.
In litigation, disputes often turn on precise language. A slight change in how an argument is described can significantly affect how it is perceived by a judge or jury. For that reason, attorneys are often quick to point out when they believe their opponent is arguing against a position that was never advanced.
When lawyers accuse one another of creating a straw man, they are generally asserting that the debate has been redirected toward a distorted version of the actual dispute.
How Trial Attorneys Address Straw Man Arguments
During hearings and trials, attorneys may object—formally or informally—to what they view as a misrepresentation of their case.
For example, a plaintiff‘s lawyer might argue that the defense has overstated the plaintiff‘s allegations in order to make them seem unreasonable. Likewise, defense counsel may contend that the plaintiff has simplified the defense‘s position to avoid confronting its strongest points.
In either situation, the attorney’s objective is the same: to bring the court’s attention back to the real claims, evidence, and legal issues before it.
Experienced trial lawyers understand that credibility is one of the most valuable assets in a courtroom. Demonstrating that an opponent has attacked a distorted version of the case can strengthen an attorney’s own position while undermining the persuasive force of the opposing argument.
Precision and Fairness in Legal Advocacy
The legal system depends upon accurate presentation of facts and arguments. Judges and juries can only evaluate a dispute fairly when the competing positions are described correctly.
Although lawyers are expected to advocate vigorously for their clients, effective advocacy does not require mischaracterizing an opponent’s position. In fact, the strongest legal arguments often arise when attorneys confront the opposing side’s actual contentions directly and explain why they are unsupported by the evidence or the law.
Avoiding straw man reasoning promotes both intellectual honesty and effective persuasion.
Conclusion
The straw man fallacy occurs when someone substitutes a weakened or distorted version of an argument for the real one and then attacks the substitute. While the tactic may create the appearance of a strong rebuttal, it does little to advance genuine understanding.
For legal professionals, identifying straw man arguments can be an important part of courtroom advocacy. For the public, recognizing this fallacy can lead to more thoughtful analysis of debates, news reports, and everyday discussions. In either setting, focusing on what was actually said—not on a convenient caricature of it—helps foster clearer reasoning and more productive dialogue.
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.
Under Washington State laws, what are “protected classes” within the context of employment discrimination? 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
INTRODUCTION: PROTECTED CLASSES (WA STATE)
Washington State has comprehensive employment-discrimination laws to shield workers from unjust treatment rooted in specific attributes. An integral facet of these legal provisions is the acknowledgment of “protected classes.” This article will enumerate the protected classes within the employment-rights framework of the Washington Law Against Discrimination.
I. The Washington Law Against Discrimination: EMPLOYMENT
The Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”) is a potent statute enacted in 1949, and it covers a broad array of categories including, but not limited to employment, as follows:
Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of civil rights.
(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;
…
RCW 49.60.030(1)(a) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added). The WLAD protects, inter alia, employees from the unfair practices of employers.
II. Unfair Practices of Employers: generally
Under the WLAD, certain employers are prohibited from engaging in specific unfair practices in employment. The relevant law states as follows:
(1) To refuse to hire any person 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, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification: PROVIDED, That the prohibition against discrimination because of such disability shall not apply if the particular disability prevents the proper performance of the particular worker involved: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require an employer to establish employment goals or quotas based on sexual orientation.
[Discriminate in Compensation or in Other Terms/Conditions of Employment]
(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: PROVIDED, That it shall not be an unfair practice for an employer to segregate washrooms or locker facilities on the basis of sex, or to base other terms and conditions of employment on the sex of employees where the commission by regulation or ruling in a particular instance has found the employment practice to be appropriate for the practical realization of equality of opportunity between the sexes.
[Statements, Advertisements, Publications, Applications for Employment, Inquiries in Connection With Prospective Employment]
(4) To print, or circulate, or cause to be printed or circulated any statement, advertisement, or publication, or to use any form of application for employment, or to make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment, which expresses any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to 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, or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification: PROVIDED, Nothing contained herein shall prohibit advertising in a foreign language.
III. unfair practices of employers: filing or participating in a disrimination complaint (UNLAWFUL RETALIATION)
The WLAD also outlaws certain types of retaliation: “[i]t is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination], or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination].” RCW 49.60.210. Moreover, “[i]t is an unfair practice for a government agency or government manager or supervisor to retaliate against a whistleblower as defined in chapter 42.40 RCW.” RCW 49.60.210.
NOTE: The foregoing unfair practices are based upon specific protected classes.
IV. Defining Protected Classes
Protected classes encompass groups of individuals shielded from discrimination under governmental statutes. Washington State explicitly delineates these classes under the WLAD, recognizing various categories within, inter alia, the realm of employment, including the following:
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).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the exploration of protected classes within Washington State’s employment discrimination laws highlights the state’s commitment to fostering a workplace environment rooted in equality and fairness. The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), a robust statute enacted in 1949, serves as a powerful safeguard against unjust treatment based on specific attributes.
In essence, the WLAD stands as a cornerstone in Washington State’s pursuit of equal opportunities, reinforcing the principles of fairness, justice, and non-discrimination in employment. As we navigate the complexities of the modern workplace, understanding and upholding the rights of protected classes are crucial steps towards creating a truly inclusive and equitable work environment in the Evergreen State.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
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.
Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what is the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”) regulation concerning reconsideration (WAC 162-08-311)? 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
WAC 162-08-311 Explained: What Happens When a Party Asks an Administrative Law Judge to Take Another Look?
In administrative proceedings, a final order is often viewed as the end of the case before the agency. However, Washington law provides a limited opportunity for a party to ask an administrative law judge (ALJ) to revisit a decision before the matter moves into the appellate stage. That opportunity is found in WAC 162-08-311*, which addresses motions for reconsideration.
For attorneys, the rule presents an important procedural tool. For individuals representing themselves, it offers a way to bring a potential oversight to the judge’s attention without immediately pursuing an appeal.
THE BLACK LETTER LAW
The relevant regulation states as follows:
WAC 162-08-311
Reconsideration.
(1) Motion. Within ten days after being served with the final order of an administrative law judge, any party may serve and file a motion for reconsideration with the commission clerk. The motion shall identify the points that the party desires to have reconsidered and shall fully state the reasons for reconsideration. The motion shall in all other respects proceed as provided in RCW 34.05.470*.
(2) Finality for appeal. When a motion for reconsideration has been filed, the order of the administrative law judge shall not be deemed final for purposes of appeal until the ruling on the motion has been served.
(3) Reconsideration not necessary for appeal. Motions for reconsideration should be made only when a party feels that the administrative law judge has overlooked or misunderstood something. It is not necessary to file a motion for reconsideration in order to appeal. RCW 34.05.470(5)*.
WAC 162-08-311* allows any party to request reconsideration of an ALJ’s final order. The request must be filed with the commission clerk within ten days after the order has been served.
The rule requires more than a statement of disagreement. A party must identify the specific aspects of the decision that should be reconsidered and explain why further review is justified. The process is also governed by the requirements set forth in RCW 34.05.470*.
In practical terms, reconsideration is intended to address potential mistakes, omissions, or misunderstandings—not to provide a second chance to argue the entire case.
Timing Matters
The ten-day filing period is one of the most significant features of the rule. Once a final order is issued, parties have a relatively short window in which to seek reconsideration.
Because administrative proceedings often involve strict procedural requirements, missing the deadline may eliminate the opportunity to have the ALJ review the matter again before appellate proceedings begin.
The Relationship Between Reconsideration and Appeals
Many litigants assume they must first seek reconsideration before filing an appeal. WAC 162-08-311* makes clear that this is not the case.
A party may appeal without first asking the ALJ to reconsider the decision. The regulation expressly notes that reconsideration is optional and should generally be reserved for situations in which the judge may have overlooked or misunderstood a relevant issue.
This distinction is important because it allows parties to decide whether further review by the ALJ is likely to be productive or whether appellate review is the better course.
What Happens to the Appeal Clock?
The filing of a reconsideration motion also affects when a decision becomes final for appellate purposes.
Under the rule, a final order does not become final for purposes of appeal while a timely motion for reconsideration remains pending. Finality occurs only after the ruling on reconsideration has been served.
As a result, parties must pay attention not only to the date of the original order but also to the date on which the reconsideration decision is issued.
When Is Reconsideration Worth Considering?
Although every case presents unique circumstances, reconsideration is often most useful when a party believes that:
• Evidence in the record was overlooked; • A factual finding appears inconsistent with the evidence presented; • A legal principle was incorrectly applied; or • An argument central to the case was not fully addressed.
By contrast, a motion that merely repeats arguments already considered by the ALJ is less likely to accomplish its objective.
Final Thoughts
WAC 162-08-311* creates a focused procedure for asking an administrative law judge to revisit a final decision. The rule imposes a ten-day deadline, postpones appellate finality while reconsideration is pending, and confirms that reconsideration is not a required step before an appeal.
For parties evaluating their post-decision options, the key question is whether the ALJ may have missed or misunderstood an important aspect of the case. If so, reconsideration may offer an efficient way to seek correction before turning to the appellate process.
RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
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.
Under the rules of logic, what does the term Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc 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
“Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc” in Employment Litigation: Why Timing Alone Is Not Proof
Latin phrases remain deeply embedded in the legal profession, and one logical principle frequently encountered in employment litigation is cum hoc ergo propter hoc — meaning “with this, therefore because of this.” In modern terms, it is commonly referred to as the “false cause” fallacy.
An Example: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)
The Role of Timing in Employment Disputes
Workplace conflicts often involve emotionally charged timelines. An employee reports discrimination and is later terminated. A worker requests medical leave and subsequently receives discipline. A manager complains about performance shortly after an employee engages in protected activity.
To many people, these sequences naturally appear suspicious. Jurors, employers, employees, and even experienced professionals may instinctively connect the events and conclude that one caused the other.
However, employment litigation requires more than suspicion or coincidence. Courts generally require evidence showing an actual causal relationship between the protected conduct and the employer’s adverse action.
This is where the false cause fallacy becomes highly relevant.
How Plaintiff Attorneys Use Circumstantial Evidence
As a result, timing can become an important evidentiary factor. When adverse employment action occurs shortly after an employee files a complaint, requests an accommodation, or participates in an investigation, attorneys may argue that the close temporal proximity supports an inference of unlawful intent.
In many cases, this argument can be persuasive — particularly when combined with inconsistent explanations, shifting justifications, hostile communications, or unequal treatment of similarly situated employees.
Still, experienced litigators understand that timing alone rarely ends the analysis.
The Defense Perspective: Correlation Is Not Causation
Defense attorneys frequently counter these claims by emphasizing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employer’s actions*. Employers may present documentation showing long-standing performance concerns, restructuring plans, attendance problems, misconduct investigations, or policy violations that predated the employee’s protected activity.
From the defense perspective, the plaintiff may be committing the very logical error described by cum hoc ergo propter hoc: assuming that because discipline followed protected conduct, the protected conduct must have caused the discipline.
In other words, correlation does not automatically establish causation.
Employment defense counsel therefore focus heavily on records, timelines, witness testimony, and consistent decision-making processes to demonstrate that the employer’s actions were based on lawful business considerations rather than unlawful motive.
Why the Concept Matters in the Courtroom
The challenge in employment litigation is that timing can be both meaningful and misleading at the same time. A suspicious sequence of events may justify further scrutiny, but it does not necessarily prove liability.
For judges and juries, the central issue is whether the evidence as a whole demonstrates unlawful intent. Strong employment litigators on both sides understand that persuasive cases are built not merely on chronology, but on context, credibility, documentation, and corroborating evidence.
Understanding the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is therefore valuable not only for attorneys, but also for employers, HR professionals, employees, and jurors evaluating workplace disputes.
Conclusion
Employment-law cases often turn on complicated questions of motive and causation. While close timing between events may raise legitimate concerns, the legal system ultimately requires proof that one event actually caused the other.
The principle of cum hoc ergo propter hoc serves as an important reminder that in employment litigation, coincidence and causation are not always the same thing — and effective trial attorneys know the difference.
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.
In Washington State, what are personal work journals and how can they help employees (and former employees) when pursing claims of employment discrimination? 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
Using a Personal Work Journal in Employment Discrimination Cases in Washington State
When pursuing an employment discrimination claim in Washington State, evidence is essential. Employees often find themselves in the difficult position of needing to prove that discriminatory behavior occurred over time, particularly when such behavior may not have been documented by the employer. In these situations, a well-maintained personal work journal can serve as a valuable tool during litigation.
What Is a Personal Work Journal?
A personal work journal is a private record kept by an employee, documenting workplace events, communications, and observations. This might include:
• Dates and details of discriminatory comments or actions
• Notes on who was present during specific incidents
• Descriptions of performance evaluations and changes in responsibilities
• Documentation of complaints made to HR or supervisors
• Recollections of meetings and informal conversations
While these journals are not official company documents, they can play an important role in shaping a narrative and supporting legal claims.
Because discrimination often occurs subtly or gradually, a personal journal can help demonstrate a consistent pattern that may not be apparent in formal HR records. Courts have recognized that contemporaneous notes—made at or near the time of the incidents—can be more credible than recollections made long after the fact.
How a Work Journal Can Support a Case
1. Establishing a Timeline
A journal can help construct a detailed and chronological account of events. This can be useful in showing causation—for example, if an adverse employment action occurred shortly after an employee complained about discrimination.
2. Corroborating Testimony
Notes that were recorded shortly after an event may support the employee’s version of events during depositions or trial. This can bolster the employee’s credibility and fill in gaps left by limited or sanitized employer records.
3. Identifying Witnesses
Journals often reference others who were present during discriminatory incidents. This information may help attorneys locate potential witnesses to support the employee’s claims.
4. Supporting Claims of Pretext
If an employer offers a non-discriminatory reason for an adverse action* (such as poor performance), a journal may provide evidence suggesting the justification was pretextual*—especially if performance was never questioned before a protected activity occurred.
Best Practices for Maintaining a Journal
For a journal to be helpful and admissible, it’s important to maintain it properly:
• Be factual and objective: Avoid speculation or overly emotional language. Focus on who said what, when, and where.
• Date entries accurately: Record events as soon as possible after they occur to preserve accuracy.
• Keep it private: A personal work journal should be maintained outside the workplace and not stored on employer devices or servers.
• Avoid altering entries: Retroactively editing entries can damage credibility. If you need to clarify or correct something, make a new entry and note the change transparently.
Limitations and Considerations
While journals can be helpful, they are not a silver bullet. Courts will weigh the credibility and context of journal entries, and opposing counsel may challenge their authenticity or accuracy. Additionally, if a case proceeds to litigation, the journal may be discoverable, meaning it could be shared with the employer and their legal team.
Employees should also be aware that journal content can be scrutinized. Overly dramatic or inconsistent entries may undercut the case, while consistent and measured notes can enhance credibility.
Conclusion
In employment discrimination cases in Washington State, a personal work journal can be a powerful supplement to other forms of evidence. When maintained properly, it can help employees establish a pattern of discriminatory conduct, support their testimony, and navigate the complex litigation process with more confidence.
For anyone considering legal action based on workplace discrimination, it’s wise to consult an experienced employment attorney early—and to start documenting concerns thoughtfully and consistently.
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
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.
Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), who counts as an employer for purposes of pursuing viable claims of employment discrimination? 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
Who Counts as an “Employer” Under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination?
Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) is a powerful statute designed to protect, among other things, employees from discrimination in the workplace based on race, sex, religion, disability, and other protected characteristics. A key question often arises: who exactly is considered an “employer” under this law? Understanding this is crucial for both workers seeking protection and businesses/entities aiming to comply.
WLAD Definition of Employer
The WLAD defines the terms “employer” and “person” as follows:
(11) “Employer” includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, who employs eight or more persons, and does not include any religious or sectarian organization not organized for private profit.
(19) “Person” includes one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, organizations, corporations, cooperatives, legal representatives, trustees and receivers, or any group of persons; it includes any owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, agent, or employee, whether one or more natural persons; and further includes any political or civil subdivisions of the state and any agency or instrumentality of the state or of any political or civil subdivision thereof.
Thus, under the WLAD, an “employer” is defined broadly, and the statute includes:
• Any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly – This means that it’s not only the company or organization itself that can be liable, but also individuals or entities making employment decisions on the employer’s behalf. For example, human resources managers, corporate officers, and staffing agencies might fall under this umbrella if they influence hiring, firing, or workplace conditions.
•Entities employing 8 or more people – WLAD protections generally apply to businesses, organizations, and entities that have a minimum workforce of eight employees. This threshold matters: small businesses or entities with fewer than eight employees are typically outside the WLADs reach.
•Exemptions for certain religious organizations – The statute specifically excludes religious or sectarian organizations not organized for private profit. For example, in practical terms, a nonprofit church or religious charity acting in a ministerial or faith-based capacity may not be treated as an “employer” for WLAD purposes, though this exemption can be nuanced depending on how secular versus religious the roles in question are. Talk to an attorney to learn more and review our Disclaimer.
For employees, understanding who counts as an employer helps identify the correct party to hold accountable in cases of discrimination. For legal professionals advising clients, it’s essential to consider both direct and indirect actors, as liability can extend beyond the traditional business owner. Additionally, knowing the eight-employee threshold and the religious organization exception can prevent misunderstandings about whether the law applies.
In short, WLAD casts a wide net, ensuring that most workplaces in Washington are covered, while carving out specific, intentional exceptions. Employers subject to the WLAD should be mindful that both their actions and those of anyone acting on their behalf can trigger liability under the law.
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.
Under the rules of logic, what does the term Petitio Principii 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: Petitio Principii in Employment Discrimination Litigation
The legal profession depends upon persuasive reasoning, but persuasion becomes problematic when an argument assumes its own conclusion. One of the oldest logical fallacies—petitio principii, or circular reasoning—appears more often in litigation than many attorneys realize, particularly in employment discrimination cases.
Although the phrase is commonly misused in casual conversation, its true meaning has significant implications for lawyers, judges, and juries alike.
What Is Petitio Principii?
Petitio principii occurs when an argument assumes the very fact it is attempting to prove. A simple example is:
“The witness is truthful because she is credible, and she is credible because she is truthful.”
The conclusion merely repeats itself in different language. No independent evidence supports the claim. In legal disputes, circular reasoning often hides beneath persuasive narratives or conclusory statements that sound evidentiary but are actually assumptions.
An Example: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)
“The employee was terminated because of discrimination because the termination itself was discriminatory.”
That statement sounds persuasive, but it provides no independent proof of discriminatory motive. The legal issue is not whether an adverse action occurred. The issue is why it occurred.
Circular Reasoning and the Burden-Shifting Framework
“The employer’s explanation is false because discrimination occurred, and discrimination occurred because the explanation is false.”
Without independent evidence, the reasoning becomes circular rather than analytical.
The same problem appears when litigants assume that procedural unfairness automatically proves unlawful bias, or when every workplace disagreement is retroactively characterized as discriminatory simply because litigation followed.
The Danger of “Inference Stacking”
Employment cases often rely on inference, which is entirely proper when grounded in evidence. But attorneys sometimes build one unsupported inference upon another.
For example:
• The employee received criticism; • Therefore management disliked the employee; • Therefore management was biased; • Therefore the termination was discriminatory.
Each conclusion depends upon the prior assumption rather than independent proof. That is not careful reasoning. It is speculation layered into narrative form.
“The company could not have discriminated because it maintains anti-discrimination policies.”
But a policy is not proof of compliance. Assuming lawful intent merely because policies exist can become circular as well. Likewise, arguing that a supervisor cannot be biased because the supervisor previously hired or promoted protected employees may oversimplify a far more fact-specific inquiry. Cf., Same Actor Inference Doctrine (my article supporting how this argument might be viable in some employment discrimination cases).
Distinguishing Inference from Circularity
Not every inference is improper. Legitimate discrimination claims often rely on:
• Comparator evidence; • Discriminatory remarks; • Statistical disparities; • Suspicious timing; or • Inconsistent explanations supported by other facts.
The distinction is simple:
• A valid inference moves from evidence to conclusion. • Circular reasoning treats the conclusion itself as evidence.
Why Logical Discipline Matters
Employment discrimination law occupies an important place in the justice system because it balances workplace accountability with fairness to both employees and employers.
When courts or attorneys rely on circular reasoning, weak claims may appear stronger than they are, while legitimate defenses—or legitimate claims—may receive inadequate analysis. For trial attorneys, recognizing petitio principii is therefore more than an academic exercise. It is part of effective advocacy and ethical legal reasoning.
The strongest employment cases are not built upon assumptions repeated persuasively. They are built upon evidence that independently supports the conclusion the advocate seeks to prove.
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.
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
• 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.
• 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.
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 elenchican 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.
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.
