LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

April 25, 2026April 30, 2026

What Qualifies as Wrongful Termination in Washington?

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 qualifies as wrongful termination in Washington?

answer:

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

(1) The Statutory Exception;

(2) The Judicial Exception; and

(3) The Contractual Exception.

(1) THE STATUTORY EXCEPTION

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

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

(2) THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION

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

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

(3) THE CONTRACTUAL EXCEPTION

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

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

Did you resign from your job?

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

Read Our Related Articles

»Constructive Discharge in WA State*

»Effective Date For Constructive Discharge (WA State)

»Retaliatory Discharge (WA State)

»The Prima Facie Case: Discriminatory Discharge

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

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

»WLAD: The Discriminatory Discharge Provision*

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

NEED HELP?

If you need legal assistance, consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

April 23, 2026April 25, 2026

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

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

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

Advertisement

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

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

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

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

What the Rules Protect Against

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

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

the meaning of bias, prejudice, and harassment

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

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

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

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

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

A Judge’s Duty to Step In

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

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

When Sensitive Characteristics Are Relevant

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

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

Id.* at comment 5 (emphasis added).

The Obligation Extends Beyond Hearings

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

THE BLACK-LETTER LAW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Id.*

Conclusion

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

*All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website.

LEARN MORE

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 16, 2026July 9, 2026

Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Populum

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

Advertisement

Argumentum Ad Populum: When Popularity Isn’t Proof

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

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

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

Implications

general public

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

legal professionals

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

Conclusion

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

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

Read Our Related Articles

» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

» Law & Logic: Ad Hominem

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Antiquitam (Appeal to Tradition)

» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)

» Law & Logic: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)

» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)

» Law & Logic: Proper Reasoning (Valid Logic)

» Law & Logic: The Straw Man Fallacy

LEARN MORE

–gw

April 9, 2026April 25, 2026

Personality Tests and Employment Discrimination

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

Advertisement

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

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

Why These Tests Raise Red Flags

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

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

• “Adaptability” metrics can disadvantage neurodivergent candidates.

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

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

Washington’s Broader Legal Standard

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

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

What Employers Should Be Doing (opinion)

To stay compliant, I believe Washington employers should:

• Audit any personality or behavioral test for disparate impact.

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

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

• Avoid blanket reliance on automated scoring or algorithmic rankings.

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

What Employees Should Know

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

Conclusion

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

Read Our Related Articles

» Employment Discrimination Based Upon Cannabis Use (WA State)

» Job Applicants and Criminal Records

» Unlawful Retaliation and the Prospective Employer

LEARN MORE

–gw

April 2, 2026April 2, 2026

WSHRC: Service and Filing of Papers

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

Advertisement

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

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

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

Here’s a practical breakdown.

1. How Documents Must Be Served

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

• Personal delivery

• First‑class, registered, or certified mail

• Telegraph (yes, it’s still listed)

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

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

2. Who Is Responsible for Serving What?

WAC 162‑08‑041* draws a clear line:

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

• Parties are responsible for serving everything they file.

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

3. Who Must Be Served?

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

• All counsel of record

• Any unrepresented parties

• Any designated agents

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

4. Serving the Commission Itself

This is a point that often trips people up.

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

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

5. When Service by Mail Is Considered Complete

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

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

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

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

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

6. Filing Requirements

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

» WA State Human Rights Commission Complaints

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

» WSHRC: From Complaint to Conclusion

» WSHRC: Organization and Operations

» WSHRC: Relationship of Commission to Complainant

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

–gw

March 26, 2026April 25, 2026

Definition of Color (WLAD)

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

Advertisement

Defining “Color” Under Washington Law

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

Distinction Between Color and Race

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

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

How Color Discrimination Appears in Practice

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

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

Legal Framework and Enforcement

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

LEARN MORE

–gw

March 19, 2026April 25, 2026

The Perils of Plaintiff Dishonesty or Inaccuracy During Litigation

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

Advertisement

Perils of Plaintiff Dishonesty or Inaccuracy During Employment-Discrimination Litigation

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

1. Credibility Drives Outcomes

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

2. False Statements Can Trigger Legal Penalties

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

3. Dishonesty Weakens the Broader System

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

4. Attorney-Client Relationships Depend on Transparency

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

5. The Facts Alone Are Often Enough

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

6. Discovery Will Expose Inconsistencies

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

Conclusion

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

LEARN MORE

–gw

February 15, 2026March 26, 2026

Disability-Based Hostile Work Environment

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, how does one establish a disability-based hostile work environment case via circumstantial evidence? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

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

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

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

(2) that the harassment was unwelcome,

(3) that it was because of the disability,

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

(5) that it was imputable to the employer.

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

SECOND ELEMENT (UNWELCOME)

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

THIRD ELEMENT (BECAUSE OF DISABILITY)

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

FOURTH ELEMENT (TERMS & CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT)

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

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

FIFTH ELEMENT (IMPUTABLE TO EMPLOYER)

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

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

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

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

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

Definition of Prima Facie Case**

Disability-Based Hostile Work Environment

Harassment & Terms or Conditions of Employment: A Closer Look

Hostile Work Environment: Imputing Harassment to Employer

Hostile Work Environment: Terms or Conditions of Employment

Hostile Work Environment: The Unwelcome Element

McDonnel Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework**

Protected Classes

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (WA State)

The Prima Facie Case: Hostile Work Environment

Top 3 Hostile Work Environment Issues

WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment

WLAD: Imputing Harassment to Employers**

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

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

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 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