LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

August 3, 2021October 21, 2024

The Prima Facie Case: Hostile Work Environment

Under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what is the prima facie case for hostile work environment (also known as harassment)? 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

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (WA STATE)

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60, “an employer may ordinarily avoid liability for … harassment[, based upon an employee‘s membership in a protected class,] by taking prompt and adequate corrective action when it learns that an employee is being [unlawfully] … harassed.” See Glasgow v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 408 (Wash. 1985) (hyperlinks added).

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (WA STATE)

In Washington, the term “hostile work environment” is synonymous with harassment. “To establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show the following four elements:

(1) the harassment was unwelcome,

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

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

(4) the harassment is imputable to the employer.

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

-ELEMENT (1): Harassment was unwelcome

“In order to constitute harassment, the complained of conduct must be unwelcome in the sense that the plaintiff-employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the further sense that the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive.” Glasgow, 103 Wn.2d at 406.

-ELEMENT (2): The harassment was because of membership in a protected class

“The question to be answered here is: would the employee have been singled out and caused to suffer the harassment if the employee had been … [outside the protected class]?” See id. “This statutory criterion requires that the [protected class] … of the plaintiff-employee be the motivating factor for the unlawful discrimination.” See id.

-ELEMENT (3): The harassment affected the terms or conditions of employment

“Casual, isolated or trivial manifestations of a discriminatory environment do not affect the terms or conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate the law.” Id.; cf. Gregory A. Williams, Esq., Stray-Remarks Doctrine and Employment Discrimination (WA State), Williams Law Group Blog, July 30, 2021 (Washington Courts do not apply the Stray-Remarks Doctrine to employment discrimination cases). In addition, “[t]he harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Glasgow, 103 Wn.2d at 406.

-ELEMENT (4): The harassment is imputable to the employer

WHERE OWNER, MANAGER, PARTNER, OR CORPORATE OFFICER HARASSES: “Where an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participates in the harassment, this element is met by such proof.” Id. at 407.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Id. (emphasis and 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.

August 1, 2021October 21, 2024

The Prima Facie Case: Reasonable Accommodations

Under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what is the prima facie case for failure to provide reasonable accommodations? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS (WA STATE)

AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE: Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) “gives employers an affirmative duty to accommodate an employee‘s disability.” Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 12 Wn.App.2d 557, 586 (Div. 2 2020), review denied, 468 P.3d 616 (2020) (citing RCW 49.60.180(2); LaRose v. King County, 8 Wn.App.2d 90, 125, 437 P.3d 701 (2019)) (hyperlinks added).

SCOPE: “A reasonable accommodation must allow the employee to work in the environment and perform the essential functions of her job without substantially limiting symptoms.” Id. (citing Frisino v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 160 Wn.App. 765, 777-78, 249 P.3d 1044 (2011)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

MULTIPLE METHODS OF ACCOMMODATION: “Where multiple potential methods of accommodation exist, the employer is entitled to select the appropriate method.” Id. (citing Frisino, 160 Wn.App. at 779).

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (WA STATE)

“An employee claiming his or her employer failed to accommodate a disability must prove that[:]

(1) the employee suffered from a disability,
(2) the employee was qualified to do the job at issue,
(3) the employee gave his or her employer notice of the disability, and
(4) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate that disability.

Id. (citing LaRose, 8 Wn.App.2d at 125-26) (paragraph formatting and emphasis and hyperlinks added).

TAKE OUR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TEST (VIDEO):

The Prima Facie Case: Discriminatory Discharge

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

Advertisement

DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE (WA STATE)

“[T]he WLAD prohibits an employer from discharging an employee because of certain protected characteristics, including[, but not limited to age, sex, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or] a sensory, mental, or physical disability.” Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 12 Wn.App.2d 557, 570 (Div. 2 2020), review denied, 468 P.3d 616 (2020) (citing RCW 49.60.180(2)).

“Violation of this provision supports a discriminatory discharge claim.” Id. (referencing Mikkelsen v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Kittitas County, 189 Wn.2d 516, 526, 404 P.3d 464 (2017)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (hyperlink added).

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (WA STATE)

“To make a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, an employee must show that he or she was[:]

(1) within a statutorily protected class,

(2) discharged by the defendant, and

(3) doing satisfactory work.

Id. at 572-73 (citing Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 527) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added).

WA State Torts: Public Disclosure of Private Facts

Under Washington State laws, what is the tort of “public disclosure of private facts“? 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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

COMMON LAW RIGHT TO PRIVACY

“Washington recognizes a common law right to privacy.” White v. Township of Winthrop, 128 Wn.App. 588, 593-94, 116 P.3d 1034, (Div. 3 2005) (citing Reid v. Pierce County, 136 Wash.2d 195, 207, 961 P.2d 333 (1998)). A violation of this right is considered a tort. A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which remedies may be obtained.

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS

“Public disclosure of private facts” is a privacy tort in Washington State. Washington courts “base actions for … [commission of this tort] as articulated in RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652D (1977):

One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that

(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and

(b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.

White, 128 Wn.App at 593-94 (citing Reid, 136 Wash.2d at 205, 961 P.2d 333)) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

EXAMPLE

“As concerns the general nature of matters protected by the right of privacy:

Every individual has some phases of his life and his activities and some facts about himself that he does not expose to the public eye, but keeps entirely to himself or at most reveals only to his family or to close personal friends.

Sexual relations, for example, are normally entirely private matters, as are family quarrels, many unpleasant or disgraceful or humiliating illnesses, most intimate personal letters, most details of a man’s life in his home, and some of his past history that he would rather forget.

When these intimate details of his life are spread [b]efore the public gaze in a manner highly offensive to the ordinary reasonable man, there is an actionable invasion of his privacy, unless the matter is one of legitimate public interest.

White, 128 Wn.App. at 594 (citing Cowles Publ’g Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wash.2d 712, 721, 748 P.2d 597 (1988)) (internal citations omitted) (paragraph formatting added).

LEARN MORE

June 29, 2021October 20, 2024

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Under Washington State law, how is the actual-knowledge standard applied to causation issues for purposes of unlawful retaliation cases? 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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION (WA STATE)

“To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee must show three things: (1) the employee took a statutorily protected action, (2) the employee suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link [(i.e., causation)] between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Cornwell v. Microsoft Corporation, 430 P.3d 229, 234 (Wash. 2018) (citing Currier v. Northland Servs., Inc., 182 Wn.App. 733, 742, 332 P.3d 1006 (2014); see also Wilmot v. Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Corp, 118 Wn.2d 46, 68, 821 P.2d 18 (1991) (“establishing the retaliation test in the worker’s compensation context”)) (emphasis and hyperlink added).

The focus of this article is the third element: causal link (or causation). “An employee [shows a causal link (i.e., causation)] ‘by [revealing] … that retaliation was a substantial factor motivating the adverse employment decision.’ ” Id. at 235 (Wash. 2018) (citing Allison v. Hous. Auth., 118 Wn.2d 79, 96, 821 P.2d 34 (1991)) (emphasis added).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (WA STATE)

“[T]o avoid summary judgment on causation, the employee must show only that a reasonable jury could find that retaliation was a substantial factor in the adverse employment decision.” Id. at 235 (internal citation omitted). “Employees may rely on the following facts to show this: (1) the employee took a protected action, (2) the employer had knowledge of the action, and (3) the employee was subjected to an adverse employment action.” Id. (citing Wilmot, 118 Wn.2d at 69, 821 P.2d 18) (emphasis added).

The 2nd element (i.e., the employer had knowledge of the action) is at issue; one associated standard of causation applied to unlawful retaliation cases is the “actual knowledge” standard (hereinafter, “actual-knowledge standard”).

CAUSATION: THE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE STANDARD (WA STATE)

Under this standard, “the employer [must] have actual knowledge of the employee’s protected action in order to prove causation.” Id. at 235. (internal citations omitted).

The policy behind the actual-knowledge standard is that “[b]ecause retaliation is an intentional act, an employer cannot retaliate against an employee for an action of which the employer is unaware.” Id. at 235-36.

But “[a] decision-maker need not have actual knowledge about the legal significance of a protected action.” Id. at 236 (emphasis added). “Instead, the decision-maker need have actual knowledge only that the employee took the action in order to prove a causal connection.” Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).

At summary judgment, “[t]he proper inquiry is whether the … evidence suggests a causal connection between the protected activity and the subsequent adverse action sufficient to defeat summary judgment.” Id. (internal citation omitted) (alteration in original) (emphasis added).

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

Adverse Employment Actions: A Closer Look

Definition of Prima Facie Case*

Employment-Discrimination Hotlines & Unlawful Retaliation

The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*

The Prima Facie Case: Unlawful Retaliation

Top 3 Reasons Unlawful Retaliation Claims Fail

Top 3 Causation Standards: Unlawful Retaliation

Unlawful Retaliation: Adverse Employment Action

Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

Unlawful Retaliation: The Actual-Knowledge Standard

Unlawful Retaliation: The Causal Link

Unlawful Retaliation: The Functionally-Similar Test

Unlawful Retaliation: Statutorily Protected Activity

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

LEARN MORE

June 29, 2021October 20, 2024

WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, may an employee-plaintiff build a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on a hostile work environment when using the direct evidence approach? 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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), it is an unfair practice, with very few exceptions, for an employer to refuse to hire any person, to discharge or bar any person from employment, or to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms and conditions of employment because of age (40+); sex (including pregnancy); marital status; sexual orientation (including gender identity); race; color; creed; national origin; honorably discharged veteran or military status; HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C status; the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability; the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability; and state employee or health care whistleblower status.

It is also an unfair practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee because the employee complained about job discrimination or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

DISPARATE TREATMENT

Disparate treatment is a form of employment discrimination, and it occurs when an employer treats some people less favorably than others based on protected class.

Accordingly, to establish a prima facie disparate treatment discrimination case, a plaintiff must show that his employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of their protected status. Alonso v. Qwest Commc’ns Co., LLC, 178 Wn.App. 734, 743, 315 P.3d 610 (Wash.App. Div. 2 2013) (citing Johnson v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 80 Wn.App. 212, 226, 907 P.2d 1223 (1996)).

A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case by either offering direct evidence of an employer’s discriminatory intent, or by satisfying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test that gives rise to an inference of discrimination. Id. at 743-44 (citing Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483, 491, 859 P.2d 26, 865 P.2d 507 (1993)). This article solely addresses the direct evidence approach.

DIRECT EVIDENCE TEST

The plaintiff can establish a prima facie case under the direct evidence test by offering direct evidence of the following:

1. The defendant employer acted with a discriminatory motive; and

2. The discriminatory motivation was a significant or substantial factor in an employment decision.

Id. at 744 (citing Kastanis, 122 Wn.2d at 491).

SIGNIFICANT/SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR

The 2nd second element–discriminatory motivation was a significant or substantial factor in an employment decision–is at issue here. Stated differently, the plaintiff must establish that the discriminatory motive (1st element) was a significant or substantial factor in the subject employment decision. Obviously, employee-plaintiffs will be claiming that the subject employment decision was adverse to their interests.

However, an adverse employment action involves a change in employment conditions that is more than an inconvenience or alteration of one’s job responsibilities, such as reducing an employee’s workload and pay. Id. at 748 (citing Campbell v. State, 129 Wn.App. 10, 22, 118 P.3d 888 (2005), review denied, 157 Wn.2d 1002 (2006)).

A demotion or adverse transfer, or a hostile work environment, may amount to an adverse employment action. Id. at 746 (citing Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wn.App. 454, 465, 98 P.3d 827 (2004), review denied, 154 Wn.2d 1007 (2005)) (emphasis added).

CONCLUSION

An employee-plaintiff might be able to build a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on a hostile work environment. However, the prima facie case will be incomplete unless the employee-plaintiff is also able to establish the 1st element of the direct evidence test; this article only addresses the 2nd element.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Definition of Prima Facie Case**

» Disparate Treatment: A Closer Look**

» Disparate Treatment: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification**

» Disparate Treatment vs. Disparate Impact Discrimination**

» Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment**

» Disparate Treatment: Pretext by Comparison

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

» Prima Facie Case: The Replacement Element**

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment via Direct Evidence

» WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

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

LEARN MORE

June 29, 2021October 20, 2024

Express Direction Rule & Final Judgments: WA State

Under Washington State law, what is the Express Direction Rule and how is it applied to judgments in Washington State Superior Courts? 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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.

Advertisement

CIVIL RULE 54(b) — JUDGMENTS ON MULTIPLE CLAIMS

Washington State Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b) governs entry of judgments on multiple claims and provides that “the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination in the judgment, supported by written findings, that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” Fluor Enterprises, Inc. v. Walter Construction, LTD., 141 Wn.App. 761, 766, 172 P.3d 368, (Div. I 2007) (quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, the courts have held that four things are required for entry of a final judgment under CR 54(b):

(1) more than one claim for relief or more than one party against whom relief is sought;

(2) an express determination that there is no just reason for delay;

(3) written findings supporting the determination that there is no just reason for delay; and

(4) an express direction for entry of the judgment.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., 141 Wn.App. at 766-67 (quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

EXPRESS DIRECTION FOR ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT

Washington State appellate courts have clarified that element four–an express direction for entry of the judgment–requires that the trial court’s order must expressly direct entry of a CR 54(b) final judgment or it will not meet the requirements of CR 54(b). Fluor Enterprises, Inc., 141 Wn.App. at 769.

In Fluor Enterprises, Inc., there was more than one claim for relief and the trial court’s order on one of the claims did not expressly direct entry of a CR 54(b) final judgment. Consequently, the court held that the trial court’s order as to that claim did not meet the requirements of CR 54(b). Id.

ALL CLAIMS FOR & AGAINST ALL PARTIES

It is worth noting that Washington State appellate courts have expressly mandated that entry of a final judgment should await the resolution of all claims for and against all parties. Id. at 767 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders with Ethics and Accountability Now (C.L.E.A.N.), 119 Wn.App. 665, 82 P.3d 1199, rev. denied, 152 Wn.2d 1023, 101 P.3d 107 (2004)).

Furthermore, the appellate courts have held that the following reasons justify a trial court’s delay of the entry of a final judgment until all claims had been resolved:

(1) to offset judgments favorable to each side before any enforcement activity takes place;

(2) to preclude the disruptive effects of enforcement and appellate activity while trial court proceedings are still ongoing; and

(3) to avoid a multiplicity of appeals.

Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

LEARN MORE

June 28, 2021October 20, 2024

Top 3 Employment Discrimination Theories

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), there are several common employment-discrimination theories that plaintiffs tend to litigate. Here are my top 3 employment discrimination theories under WLAD:

(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. Some links in this article take the reader to 3rd party websites including our second website: Williams Law Group, PS. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

#3 – DISPARATE TREATMENT

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), it is an unfair practice, with very few exceptions, for an employer to refuse to hire any person, to discharge or bar any person from employment, or to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms and conditions of employment because of age (40+); sex (including pregnancy); marital status; sexual orientation (including gender identity); race; color; creed; national origin; citizenship or immigration status; honorably discharged veteran or military status; HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C status; the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability; the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability; and state employee or health care whistleblower status.

It is also an unfair practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee because the employee complained about job discrimination or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Disparate treatment occurs when an employer treats some people less favorably than others because of membership in a protected class. See Alonso v. Qwest Communications Co., 178 Wn.App 734, 744, 315 P.3d 610 (Div. 2 2013) (internal citations omitted).

“To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show that [his/her] employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of their protected class.” Id. (internal citations omitted) (hyperlink added).

#2 – HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

Hostile work environment is also known “Harassment,” and it’s actionable only if it is sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. See id. 749 (citing Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d 256, 261, 103 P.3d 729 (2004)).

In order to establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim, the plaintiff must alleged facts proving that (1) the harassment was unwelcome, (2) the harassment was because the plaintiff was a member of a protected class, (3) the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, and (4) the harassment is imputable to the employer.” Id. (citing Loeffelholz v. Univ. of Wash., 175 Wn.2d 264, 275, 285 P.3d 854 (2012)).

#3 – UNLAWFUL RETALIATION

The Washington Law Against Discrimination also prohibits retaliation against a party asserting a claim based on a perceived violation of his/her civil rights or participating in an investigation into alleged workplace discrimination. Id. at 753 (citing RCW 49.60.210).

To establish a prima facie retaliation case, a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity, (2) his employer took an adverse employment action against him, and (3) there is a causal link between the activity and the adverse action. Id. at 753-54 (internal citation omitted).

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

June 28, 2021October 20, 2024

Top 3 Hostile Work Environment Issues

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), hostile work environment (also known as “harassment”) is a form of unlawful employment discrimination.

(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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

WLAD: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

Generally, to establish a claim of hostile work environment, the plaintiff must establish the following: the harassment was unwelcome; the harassment was because of membership in a protected class; the harassment affected the terms and conditions or employment; and the harassment can be imputed to the employer.

Here are my top 3 hostile work environment issues under the WLAD:

#1 – The Harassment was Unwelcome & Because of Protected Class

In order to establish harassment, “the complained of conduct must be unwelcome in the sense that the plaintiff-employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the further sense that the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive.” Glasgow v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 406 (Wash. 1985).

Moreover, the harassment must be on account of the plaintiff’s membership in one or more protected classes. See id. “The question to be answered here is: would the employee have been singled out and caused to suffer the harassment if the employee had not been in” the protected class? See id.

#2 – The Harassment Affected Terms or Conditions of Employment

“Casual, isolated or trivial manifestations of a discriminatory environment do not affect the terms or conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate the law.” Id. at 406-07. To be actionable, “the harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id.

#3 – The Harassment is Imputed to Employer

Harassment is imputed to the employer where there is sufficient proof that an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participates in the harassment. Id. at 407.

Otherwise, “to hold an employer responsible for the discriminatory work environment created by a plaintiff’s supervisor(s) or co-worker(s), the employee must show that the employer (a) authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and (b) failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.” Id.

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.

–gw

June 28, 2021October 20, 2024

The Valid Regulation Presumption

Under Washington State canons of statutory construction, what is the Valid Regulation Presumption? 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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

THE VALID REGULATION PRESUMPTION

Generally, regulations implement statutes. In Washington State, the Valid Regulation Presumption is as follows:

There is a presumption that the regulation is valid, and the burden of challenging it is upon the party attacking it …. [The court’s] review in such situations generally is limited to determining whether the regulation is reasonably consistent with the statute it purports to implement.

Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Company, 22 Wn.App. 576, 580, 591 P.2d 461 (Div. 1 1997) (referencing Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Department of Ecology, 86 Wash.2d 310, 314, 545 P.2d 5 (1976)).

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

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (WA STATE)

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (WA STATE)

-ELEMENT (1): Harassment was unwelcome

-ELEMENT (2): The harassment was because of membership in a protected class

-ELEMENT (3): The harassment affected the terms or conditions of employment

-ELEMENT (4): The harassment is imputable to the employer

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS (WA STATE)

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (WA STATE)

TAKE OUR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TEST (VIDEO):

READ MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC

LEARN MORE

DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE (WA STATE)

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE (WA STATE)

READ MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC

LEARN MORE

COMMON LAW RIGHT TO PRIVACY

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS

EXAMPLE

LEARN MORE

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION (WA STATE)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (WA STATE)

CAUSATION: THE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE STANDARD (WA STATE)

READ MORE ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

DISPARATE TREATMENT

DIRECT EVIDENCE TEST

SIGNIFICANT/SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR

CONCLUSION

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

CIVIL RULE 54(b) — JUDGMENTS ON MULTIPLE CLAIMS

EXPRESS DIRECTION FOR ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT

ALL CLAIMS FOR & AGAINST ALL PARTIES

LEARN MORE

#3 – DISPARATE TREATMENT

#2 – HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

#3 – UNLAWFUL RETALIATION

LEARN MORE

WLAD: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

#1 – The Harassment was Unwelcome & Because of Protected Class

#2 – The Harassment Affected Terms or Conditions of Employment

#3 – The Harassment is Imputed to Employer

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

THE VALID REGULATION PRESUMPTION

LEARN MORE