LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

June 26, 2025June 26, 2025

Pre-Litigation Settlement Caps: EEOC vs. WSHRC

Does the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) enforce pre-litigation settlement caps? 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

Settling Employment Discrimination Claims: EEOC and WSHRC Settlement Caps

People who experience workplace discrimination often have the option to address their claims through federal or state agencies before filing a lawsuit.

NOTE: Individuals pursuing claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must first exhaust the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOCs) administrative prerequisites before filing suit in court — this is mandatory, not optional.

In Washington State, two main agencies that handle these matters are the EEOC and the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC), which enforces state-level protections. A crucial question for those considering settlement through these agencies is whether any financial limits apply to the amount they can recover. The sections below take a closer look at whether such settlement caps exist in either forum.

1. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Settlement Cap

The EEOC* plays a crucial role in handling discrimination claims under federal laws, including Title VII. It investigates claims of discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions, transgender status, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information

In terms of settlement, the EEOC does not impose a specific dollar cap for settlements that occur during its investigation or conciliation process. Instead, the agency facilitates settlement discussions between the claimant (charging party) and the employer (respondent). The settlement amount is generally determined through negotiation and mutual agreement between both parties, with the goal of resolving the dispute efficiently without proceeding to litigation.

However, there are guidelines that could influence the settlement amount:

Back Pay and Front Pay: Settlements may include financial compensation for lost wages (back pay) or future lost wages (front pay), depending on the circumstances of the case.

Compensatory Damages: Claimants may be eligible for compensatory damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, and other non-economic losses. These damages are capped depending on the size of the employer’s business, as prescribed by the Civil Rights Act. See Punitive Damages, below.

Punitive Damages: Title VII allows for the recovery of punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination with malice or reckless indifference. Such recoveries are–similar to compensatory damages–capped depending on the size of the employer’s business.

NOTE: Limits on Compensatory & Punitive Damages. There are limits on the amount of compensatory and punitive damages a person can recover. These limits vary depending on the size of the employer:

• For employers with 15-100 employees, the limit is $50,000.

• For employers with 101-200 employees, the limit is $100,000.

• For employers with 201-500 employees, the limit is $200,000.

• For employers with more than 500 employees, the limit is $300,000.

Attorney’s Fees, Expert Witness Fees, and Court Costs: A victim of discrimination also may be able to recover attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and court costs.

While the EEOC does not impose a strict cap, settlement amounts in cases that the EEOC resolves are often guided by the circumstances of the claim and the financial situation of the employer.

2. Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) Settlement Cap

In Washington State, the WSHRC handles, inter alia, claims of employment discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) — it is responsible for enforcing the WLAD. The WSHRC works similarly to the EEOC* but addresses claims under state law.

One notable difference, however, is that the WSHRC has specific caps for pain and suffering awards by administrative law judges (ALJ) under the WLAD. The maximum amount of damages that an appointed ALJ can award to an employment-discrimination claimant for humiliation and mental suffering is $20,000. See RCW 49.60.250(5)*. Moreover, based on my previous communications the WSHRC, even if the parties settle the claim before appointment of an ALJ, the maximum settlement amount a claimant can recover for pain and suffering in a WSHRC-administered settlement remains $20,000. This cap is part of the administrative process under the WLAD and applies specifically to settlements facilitated by the WSHRC before arbitration or filing a lawsuit.

That said, claimants who seek settlements beyond this $20,000 cap still have options. They can pursue private settlements outside of the WSHRC administrative process. In these cases, the parties involved may agree to a settlement that exceeds the WSHRC cap. However–based on my experience–the WSHRC will likely require the parties to report any such settlement to the WSHRC if the claims are still under active investigation by the agency. This reporting requirement ensures that the WSHRC is aware of the resolution, even if it falls outside the agency’s prescribed settlement limits.

Conclusion

Both the U.S. EEOC and the WSHRC provide opportunities for claimants to resolve employment discrimination disputes without proceeding to litigation, but the processes differ in key respects. While the EEOC does not impose a specific settlement dollar cap, settlements are guided by the nature of the claim and the employer’s financial capacity. In contrast, the WSHRC does have a cap for pain and suffering settlements, limiting them to $20,000 under the Washington Law Against Discrimination; claimants seeking to exceed this amount may still pursue private settlements, provided they comply with reporting requirements if the WSHRC is involved in the investigation.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

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

» EEOC: The Notice of Right to Sue

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

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

» WSHRC: Organization and Operations

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

June 12, 2025

Why Do Some Employers Unlawfully Discriminate?

Why do some employers unlawfully discriminate against their employees? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Why Employers Might Unlawfully Discriminate Against Their Employees — And Why It Matters

In the modern workplace, anti-discrimination laws have made significant strides in protecting individuals from unfair treatment based on race, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, and other protected characteristics. Despite this progress, workplace discrimination remains a persistent issue. Understanding why employers might engage in discriminatory practices — even in violation of clear legal standards — is critical for legal professionals, HR personnel, and compliance officers alike.

1. Implicit Bias and Stereotyping

Discrimination in the workplace often stems not from overt prejudice, but from unconscious biases—automatic associations and assumptions that can shape decisions without the decision-maker even realizing it. For instance, a supervisor might instinctively view men as more suitable for leadership roles or assume that older employees struggle with new technology. Though these biases may never be expressed aloud, they can influence important employment outcomes such as hiring, promotions, and disciplinary actions, often disadvantaging individuals in legally protected groups.

Legal Considerations:

Courts are increasingly acknowledging the role of implicit bias in employment discrimination cases, especially where patterns of unequal treatment or adverse impact are evident. Under laws like the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), evidence of unconscious bias can support claims of unlawful discrimination—even in the absence of direct or intentional misconduct.

2. Cultural “Fit” and the Homogeneity Trap

Hiring for “cultural fit” is a popular concept in many organizations, especially startups and smaller companies. However, this term can become a euphemism for maintaining homogeneity. Employers may, intentionally or not, exclude candidates who don’t mirror the dominant demographics or communication styles of existing teams.

While the desire for team cohesion is understandable, when “fit” becomes a code word for race, age, gender similarity, or other protected class, the legal exposure increases. Courts and agencies like the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) and U.S. EEOC scrutinize these practices for violation of associated employment-discrimination laws.

3. Economic Rationalizations

Some employers make decisions based on economic stereotypes — for example, assuming women are more likely to take maternity leave, or older workers will demand higher salaries or retire soon. These assumptions can result in discrimination cloaked in cost-saving rhetoric.

This kind of reasoning may violate laws like the WLAD, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), Equal Pay Act*, or ADEA*. Cost alone is not a defense to discriminatory practices.

4. Discriminatory Customer or Client Preferences

Another subtle driver of discrimination is the perceived preference of customers, clients, or even coworkers. For instance, an employer might believe that customers prefer to be served by younger, able-bodied, or white employees — and act accordingly.

Both the WLAD and associated Federal law is clear: employers cannot base employment decisions on customer preferences if those preferences reflect discriminatory bias based on protected class. The WLAD, Title VII, and related statutes do not carve out exceptions for such customer prejudices, no matter how commercially persuasive they might seem.

5. Inadequate Training and Compliance Infrastructure

In some cases, discrimination arises from negligence rather than malice. Employers may lack proper training, or they may fail to implement strong compliance programs that prevent bias from creeping into decision-making. This lack of oversight can result in systematic discrimination that violates state laws — even when no single person intends harm.

The legal lesson is clear: intent is not always required for liability. Under state-based disparate impact theories, a neutral policy or practice that disproportionately harms a protected class can trigger legal consequences, regardless of motive.

6. Combating Discrimination Proactively

For employers, the risk of litigation, reputational damage, and financial penalties should be motivation enough to root out discriminatory practices. For attorneys and compliance professionals, understanding these underlying causes can guide better training, policy design, and internal investigations.

Proactive strategies include but are not limited to:

• Mandatory implicit bias training for hiring managers;
• Structured interviews and standardized evaluations;
• Diversity audits and statistical monitoring;
• Clear, well-enforced anti-discrimination policies.

Conclusion

Discrimination against protected classes is rarely as blatant as it once was — but it is no less real. Whether driven by unconscious bias, flawed business logic, or misplaced priorities, discriminatory practices persist in ways that can expose employers to serious legal risk. Legal professionals must remain vigilant, not only in litigating claims but also in helping organizations recognize and eliminate the subtle forces that sustain inequality.

And for those Washington State employers that fail to heed these warnings: You may find me as opposing counsel in a lawsuit against your organization.

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

June 7, 2025October 8, 2025

Constructive Discharge Is an Adverse Employment Action (9th Circuit)

Is constructive discharge considered an adverse employment action in the 9th Circuit? 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 external 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

Constructive Discharge (or Termination)

In Washington State, resignation from employment is presumed to be voluntary. Molsness v. City of Walla Walla, 84 Wn. App. 393, 398, 928 P.2d 1108 (1996) (citing Sneed v. Barna, 80 Wn. App. 843, 912 P.2d 1035 (1996)). The legal theory of constructive discharge allows plaintiffs to rebut that presumption under both state (i.e., Washington Law Against Discrimination) and federal law (i.e., Title VII and Section 1981).

Constructive Discharge Is an Adverse Employment Action (9th Circuit)

The Ninth Circuit broadly defines an “adverse employment action” as “any action ‘reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity.’” Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840, 850 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2007)). “A constructive discharge–if proven–constitutes an adverse employment action.” Jordan v. Clark, 847 F.2d 1368, 1377 n.10 (9th Cir. 1988) (hyperlink added).

Accordingly, plaintiffs typically use constructive discharge to support viable legal theories of employment discrimination that require adverse employment actions to establish a prima facie case.

Read our related articles

» Effective Date for Constructive Discharge

» What Is Constructive Termination in WA State?

need help?

If you need help with your employment issue, then consider a consultation with an experienced employment discrimination 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 5, 2025

Employment Law 101: Settlement Agreements

In Washington State, what are settlement agreements within the context of employment-law litigation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Finality Through Compromise: The Role of Settlement Agreements in Employment Law

In employment disputes—often emotionally charged and legally complex—settlement agreements provide a structured and efficient path toward resolution. These agreements, rooted in the well-established principles of contract law, allow employers and employees to avoid the uncertainty and expense of protracted litigation. Courts in Washington, and across the country, consistently support settlements as essential tools for resolving workplace disputes with finality and fairness.

Settlement Agreements: Contracts with Legal Weight

Settlement agreements in the employment context function as legally enforceable contracts and are governed by traditional contract principles—requiring offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent. See Elgiadi v. Wash. State Univ. Spokane, 519 P.3d 939, 941 (Wash. App. 2022) (citing Stottlemyre v. Reed, 35 Wn. App. 169, 171, 665 P.2d 1383 (1983)).

Whether resolving a wrongful termination claim, a wage dispute, or allegations of workplace discrimination, the settlement process formalizes the parties’ agreement to dismiss legal claims in exchange for agreed-upon terms. Once executed, these contracts carry binding legal effect, providing closure and clarity for both employer and employee.

Mutual Concessions: The Nature of Employment Settlements

Employment settlements, like all compromises, involve mutual concessions with parties typically accepting less than what they believe they are entitled to in order to avoid the risks and burdens of litigation. See id. (citing Harding v. Will, 81 Wn.2d 132, 138, 500 P.2d 91 (1972); Strozier v. General Motors Corp., 635 F.2d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 1981); 15B AM. JUR. 2D COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS § 1 (2021)).

This is particularly true in employment disputes, where the cost of litigation, the unpredictability of jury verdicts, and the reputational stakes for both parties can be substantial. Employees may choose to settle for a guaranteed financial payment rather than risk a less favorable outcome at trial. Employers, in turn, often settle to avoid continued liability, disruption to business operations, and additional legal fees. See id. at 942.

A Strong Public Policy Favoring Settlement

Washington courts have repeatedly emphasized the strong public policy favoring settlements “and the finality they afford.” Id. at 941 (citing Haller v. Wallis, 89 Wash.2d 539, 544, 573 P.2d 1302 (1978)). Accordingly, “Washington jurisprudence recognizes a strong public policy encouraging settlements.” Id. at 941-42 (citing Am. Safety Cas. Ins. Co. v. City of Olympia, 162 Wash.2d 762, 772, 174 P.3d 54 (2007); City of Seattle v. Blume, 134 Wash.2d 243, 258, 947 P.2d 223 (1997); Seafirst Ctr. Ltd. P’ship v. Erickson, 127 Wash.2d 355, 366, 898 P.2d 299 (1995)).

In the employment context, this policy promotes quicker resolution of disputes, helping both parties move forward. It also supports a more cooperative legal environment—one that encourages dialogue and resolution rather than extended confrontation. Ultimately, settlements benefit the legal system by conserving judicial resources and providing certainty to the parties involved.

Finality: The Cornerstone of Settlement

A key aspect of any employment settlement agreement is finality. As emphasized in Haller v. Wallis, 89 Wash.2d at 544, 573 P.2d 1302, the legal system disfavors attempts to reopen resolved disputes. Once a settlement is reached and claims are released, the employer should be protected from further liability regarding the same issues.

This principle is especially important for employers, who often settle in order to eliminate the ongoing costs and uncertainties of litigation. Allowing a plaintiff to revisit settled claims would defeat the entire purpose of compromise, exposing employers to renewed legal exposure after paying to resolve the matter.

To ensure finality, settlement agreements in employment cases typically include comprehensive release of claims clauses. These provisions explicitly bar the employee from bringing future claims arising out of the same employment relationship or incident—giving employers the legal certainty they need to close the book on the dispute.

Conclusion

In employment law, where legal claims can carry high financial and reputational stakes, settlement agreements offer a vital path to resolution. Governed by contract principles and bolstered by strong public policy, these agreements serve both employer and employee by delivering certainty, efficiency, and finality. For employers and counsel alike, understanding the enforceability and purpose of settlement agreements is essential in navigating the complex world of workplace disputes.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

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

» Illegal Contracts in Washington State

» Interpreting Releases in Washington State*

» The Adhesion Contract*

» Unenforceable Employment-Contract Provisions and Discrimination Claims*

» Washington Contract Law and Sham Consideration*

» WA State Contracts & the Context Rule*

» Washington Contract Law and Sham Consideration*

LEARN MORE

–gw

May 8, 2025June 4, 2026

WSHRC: Reconsideration of Findings

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

Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

What Is WAC 162-08-101 About?

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

Key Elements of the Rule

The essential components of the rule follow:

1. “The commission may reconsider”

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

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

2. “and correct any finding”

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

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

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

Not all errors qualify. The rule applies only when:

• An error exists, and

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

For example:

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

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

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

KEY IMPLICATIONS

For the General Public

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

For Legal Professionals

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

• It may allow for correction without formal appeal.

• It encourages early identification and documentation of substantive errors.

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

What This Rule Does Not Do

Equally important are its limits:

• It does not guarantee reconsideration.

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

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

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

In Summary

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

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

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

» WA State Human Rights Commission Complaints

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

» WSHRC: From Complaint to Conclusion

» WSHRC: Organization and Operations

» WSHRC: Relationship of Commission to Complainant

» WSHRC: Withdrawal of Complaint

LEARN MORE

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

April 24, 2025April 24, 2025

Citation to Unpublished Opinions

Under Washington State Court Rules, may a party to a lawsuit cite as authority an unpublished appellate court opinion? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS — GR 14.1

In the legal world, not all opinions are created equal—especially when it comes to citing them in court. Washington’s General Rule (GR) 14.1* outlines how lawyers and judges can (and can’t) use unpublished opinions, both from Washington and other jurisdictions. The relevant rule states as follows:

GR 14.1
CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS

(a) Washington Court of Appeals. Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are those opinions not published in the Washington Appellate Reports. Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals have no precedential value and are not binding on any court. However, unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals filed on or after March 1, 2013, may be cited as nonbinding authorities, if identified as such by the citing party, and may be accorded such persuasive value as the court deems appropriate.

(b) Other Jurisdictions. A party may cite as an authority an opinion designated “unpublished,” “not for publication,” “non-precedential,” “not precedent,” or the like that has been issued by any court from a jurisdiction other than Washington state, only if citation to that opinion is permitted under the law of the jurisdiction of the issuing court.

(c) Citation of Unpublished Opinions in Subsequent Opinions. Washington appellate courts should not, unless necessary for a reasoned decision, cite or discuss unpublished opinions in their opinions.

(d) Copies of Unpublished Opinions. The party citing an unpublished opinion from a jurisdiction other than Washington shall file and serve a copy of the opinion as an appendix to the pleading in which the authority is cited.

GR 14.1* (emphasis added). Here’s a quick breakdown of what this rule means.

What Are Unpublished Opinions?

In Washington, unpublished opinions from the Court of Appeals are those that aren’t published in the official Washington Appellate Reports. Traditionally, these opinions don’t carry any precedential weight, meaning they aren’t binding on future cases.

Can They Be Cited?

Yes, but with conditions. If the unpublished opinion was filed on or after March 1, 2013, it can be cited—but only as nonbinding authority. The person citing it must clearly label it as such. Courts may consider the opinion’s reasoning persuasive, but they’re not required to follow it.

What About Opinions from Other States?

Washington courts will accept citations to unpublished or non-precedential opinions from other jurisdictions only if the rules of that jurisdiction allow it. So, it’s important to check the laws of the originating court before citing.

Washington Courts Using Unpublished Opinions

Interestingly, Washington appellate courts generally avoid citing unpublished opinions themselves. They’re encouraged to do so only when it’s necessary for making a well-reasoned decision.

One Last Requirement

If you’re citing an unpublished opinion from outside Washington, you’ll need to include a copy of it as an appendix to your filing and properly serve the same. This ensures everyone involved has access to the full context of the case.

FINAL THOUGHTS

GR 14.1 strikes a balance: it allows legal professionals to reference unpublished opinions without giving them undue weight. It opens the door to persuasive arguments while preserving the integrity of Washington’s published case law.

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.

April 17, 2025April 21, 2025

WSHRC: Sanctions

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

Advertisement

WSHRC: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: SANCTIONS

In administrative law, procedural compliance is essential to ensuring fairness and efficiency. Washington State’s Administrative Code, specifically WAC 162-08-015*, outlines the authority of administrative law judges and the Washington State Human Rights Commission to impose sanctions for misconduct or procedural abuse during administrative proceedings. This provision plays a critical role in maintaining the integrity of administrative processes, especially in cases related to discrimination and civil rights enforcement. The relevant provision states as follows:

WAC 162-08-015
Sanctions.

(1) Administrative hearings. In a case which has been noted for hearing the administrative law judge, on his or her own initiative or on motion of a party, may order a party or counsel who uses these rules for the purpose of delay, or who fails to comply with these rules or other procedures previously ordered, to satisfy terms or pay compensatory damages including attorney’s fees to any other person who has been harmed by the delay or the failure to comply. The administrative law judge may condition the right of a party to take specific action or raise specific defenses on satisfaction of the terms of the order or payment of the damages and attorney’s fees. The administrative law judge may condition the right of a counsel to participate further in the case upon satisfaction of the terms of an order or payment of the damages and attorney’s fees. The administrative law judge shall incorporate in his or her final order any sanctions order which has not been complied with, so that the sanctions order may be enforced as provided in RCW 49.60.260* and 49.60.270* and appealed from as provided in RCW 34.05.514*.

(2) Other proceedings. In a proceeding not covered by subsection (1) of this section, the chairperson of the commission may order a person or counsel who uses these rules for the purpose of delay, or who fails to comply with these rules or other procedures previously ordered, to satisfy terms, and the chairperson may condition further participation in a proceeding on compliance with these rules or orders imposing terms, but the chairperson of the commission shall not impose sanctions in the form of payment of damages or attorney’s fees.

WAC 162-08-015*.

OVERVIEW OF WAC 162-08-015

WAC 162-08-015* sets forth two primary categories where sanctions may be imposed: administrative hearings and other commission proceedings. Each category has distinct rules and enforcement mechanisms designed to deter misuse of the process and ensure accountability.

1. Sanctions in Administrative Hearings

When a case proceeds to a formal hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) is empowered to issue sanctions against parties or their legal representatives. These sanctions may arise under the following circumstances:

a. Using procedural rules for delay: If a party or attorney exploits the rules solely to stall the process.

b. Non-compliance: If there is a failure to follow procedural requirements or prior orders from the ALJ.

In such cases, the ALJ may require the offending party or attorney to:

• Satisfy certain terms (such as taking remedial actions),

• Pay compensatory damages,

• Reimburse attorney’s fees incurred by the opposing party.

Importantly, the ALJ may condition further participation in the hearing on compliance with these sanctions. This includes limiting the party’s ability to take actions or raise defenses until the sanctions are fulfilled.

Any unresolved sanctions at the time of the final ruling are incorporated into the final order, making them enforceable under RCW 49.60.260* and RCW 49.60.270*, and subject to appeal as described in RCW 34.05.514*.

2. Sanctions in Other Proceedings

Outside of formal hearings—such as during investigations or informal commission processes—the Chairperson of the Washington State Human Rights Commission holds similar, though more limited, authority.

In these contexts, if a person or attorney causes delay or violates procedural rules or orders, the Chairperson can:

• Impose conditions for continued participation in the proceeding,

• Order compliance with previously established rules or directives.

However, unlike in administrative hearings, the Chairperson cannot order the payment of damages or attorney’s fees in these situations.

IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT

The inclusion of sanctions in WAC 162-08-015 reinforces a critical principle in administrative justice: that efficiency and fairness must be preserved throughout the legal process. By allowing for compensatory remedies in formal settings and enforcing procedural discipline in informal ones, the regulation discourages frivolous tactics and promotes respectful engagement.

These provisions also help protect claimants and respondents alike from unnecessary delays and expenses, especially in matters involving civil rights and discrimination claims—areas where timely resolution is often essential to justice.

FINAL THOUGHTS

WAC 162-08-015* is a valuable tool in Washington State’s administrative framework, promoting accountability among participants in legal proceedings under the Human Rights Commission’s jurisdiction. Whether you are a party to a case or a legal representative, understanding this regulation is essential for navigating administrative hearings with integrity and professionalism.

If you are involved in a case before the Washington State Human Rights Commission, it’s wise to consult with an attorney who understands the nuances of administrative law and can help ensure compliance with all applicable rules—including WAC 162-08-015*.

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

LEARN MORE

-gw

April 5, 2025April 24, 2025

Lie-Detector Tests and Employment

Lie-Detector Tests and Employment (WA State)

Under Washington State laws, may a person, firm, corporation or the state of Washington (including its political subdivisions or municipal corporations) require employees or prospective employees to take or be subjected to lie-detector tests as a condition of employment or continued employment? 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

WASHINGTON STATE: THE LIE-DETECTOR LAW

Under Washington State law, it’s “unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or the state of Washington, its political subdivisions or municipal corporations to require, directly or indirectly, that any employee or prospective employee take or be subjected to any lie detector or similar tests as a condition of employment or continued employment[.]” RCW 49.44.120 (hereinafter, “Lie-Detector Law” or “Law“) (hyperlinks added). However, there are several limitations:

Limitation #1: The Lie-Detector Law does not “apply to persons making application for employment with any law enforcement agency or with the juvenile court services agency of any county, or to persons returning after a break of more than twenty-four consecutive months in service as a fully commissioned law enforcement officer[.]” Id.

Limitation #2: The Law does “not apply to either the initial application for employment or continued employment of persons who manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances as defined in chapter 69.50 RCW, or to persons in sensitive positions directly involving national security.” RCW 49.44.120.

Limitation #3: Nothing in the Law can “be construed to prohibit the use of psychological tests as defined in RCW 18.83.010.” RCW 49.44.120(2).

Limitation #4: Nothing in the Law “may be construed as limiting any statutory or common law rights of any person illegally denied employment or continued employment under this section for purposes of any civil action or injunctive relief.” RCW 49.44.120(5).

NOTE: The Lie-Detector Law defines the term “person” to include “any individual, firm, corporation, or agency or political subdivision of the state.” Id. Violations of the Law can lead to civil liability as well as criminal culpability.

CIVIL LIABILITY: REMEDIES

For civil actions based on violations of RCW 49.44.120, “the court may:

(1) Award a penalty in the amount of five hundred dollars to a prevailing employee or prospective employee in addition to any award of actual damages;

(2) Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing employee or prospective employee; and

(3) Pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, award any prevailing party against whom an action has been brought for a violation of RCW 49.44.120 reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause.

RCW 49.44.135.

CRIMINAL CULPABILITY

In addition to civil liability, persons violating the Lie-Detector Law are also guilty of a misdemeanor. RCW 49.44.120(3).

CONCLUSION

Washington State’s Lie-Detector Law protects both employees and prospective employees from invasive lie-detector tests used as a condition of employment or continued employment; however, there are several reasonable limitations.

Ultimately, violations of the Law can lead to both civil liability and/or criminal culpability. However, civil litigants should note that the court may award a prevailing defendant “reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause.” Proceed with caution.

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.

April 3, 2025April 3, 2025

WSHRC: From Complaint to Conclusion

Under Washington State laws and regulations, how does the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) progress from complaint to conclusion when processing employment discrimination claims? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WSHRC: FROM COMPLAINT TO CONCLUSION

In Washington State, the protection of human rights is a fundamental aspect of ensuring equality and fair treatment for all individuals. The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) serves as a vital resource for individuals who believe they have experienced discrimination in various contexts, including employment, housing, and public accommodations, real estate and credit transactions, and insurance. Understanding the process of filing and handling complaints with the WSHRC is crucial for both complainants and respondents involved in these cases. This article will focus on employment discrimination.

Filing a Complaint with the WSHRC

I. Filing a Complaint with the WSHRC

1. Initiating the Process:

Complaints can be filed with the WSHRC through an intake call or an in-person interview. See Washington State Human Rights Commission Website, https://www.hum.wa.gov/employment (last visited 2/16/24). The Intake Unit evaluates the jurisdiction of the complaint and may proceed with an intake questionnaire if it falls within the WSHRC’s purview. See id.

NOTE: WSHRC Jurisdictional Criteria

(a) “Employer has at least 8 employees (does not include religious organizations.” Id. (hyperlink added).

(b) “Signed complaints need to be filed within 6 months of last date of alleged discrimination.” Id.

2. Submission of Intake Questionnaire:

Alternatively, individuals can print out and submit the online intake questionnaire. See id. It is essential to ensure that the intake questionnaire reaches the WSHRC within six months of the alleged discriminatory action. See id.

3. Response to Written Charge:

Upon review, individuals may receive a written charge to sign and return to the WSHRC. See id.

4. Assignment to Investigator:

Once the complaint is filed, it is assigned to an investigator for further examination. See id.

Responsibilities of Employers Upon Receiving Notice

II. Responsibilities of Employers Upon Receiving Notice

1. Timely Response:

Employers must send a written response to the charge within 15 days of receiving notice. See id.

2. Position Statement:

They should articulate their position on the alleged unfair actions. See id.

3. Documentation:

Providing relevant documentation to support their response is imperative. See id.

4. Witness Information:

Employers should furnish witness names and contact information as part of the investigative process. See id.

Conducting the Investigation

III. Conducting the Investigation

1. Neutral Fact-Finding:

The WSHRC serves as a neutral fact-finder during investigations, tasked with gathering evidence to determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the law has occurred. This may involve interviewing witnesses and reviewing pertinent documents. See id.

2. Alternate Dispute Resolution:

The WSHRC encourages the use of alternate dispute resolution methods to resolve complaints efficiently. See id.

Burden of Proof

IV. Burden of Proof

1. Complainant’s Obligation:

The complainant must present information demonstrating a prima facie case of discrimination. See id.

2. Respondent’s Response:

The respondent can offer non-discriminatory reasons for the actions in question. See id.

3. Additional Evidence:

The burden of proof shifts back to the complainant to provide further information connecting the harm to the protected class. See id.

4. Standard of Proof:

For a finding of reasonable cause, the preponderance of evidence must indicate that discrimination occurred. See id.

Conclusion of the Investigation

V. Conclusion of the Investigation

1. Recommendation to Commissioners:

Following the completion of the investigation, WSHRC staff presents a recommendation to the Commissioners. See id.

2. NO FINDING OF DISCRIMINATION

“If the WSHRC finds no discrimination (no reasonable cause), both parties are contacted with that finding.” Id.

3. Finding of Discrimination:

If the WSHRC determines that illegal discrimination has occurred (reasonable cause), efforts are made to reach a voluntary agreement between the parties. If unsuccessful, the complaint may proceed to a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who can impose significant penalties. See id.

CONCLUSION

Navigating the process of filing and handling human rights complaints in Washington State requires adherence to specific procedures and responsibilities outlined by the WSHRC. By understanding these guidelines, both complainants and respondents can engage effectively in the resolution process, ultimately contributing to the promotion of equality and justice within the state.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Definition of Commission (WLAD)

» Remedies for Breach of Conciliation Agreements**

» The Intersection of WSHRC and EEOC**

» The Washington State Human Rights Commission**

» WA State Human Rights Commission Complaints

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

» WA State Human Rights Commission: Damages for Humiliation & Suffering**

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

LEARN MORE

March 27, 2025April 3, 2025

Origin of the Disparate Impact Claim

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, what is the origin of the disparate impact claim? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

ORIGIN OF THE DISPARATE IMPACT CLAIM: GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER CO.

In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971), “the [United States] Supreme Court held that Title VII prohibits employment practices that are discriminatory in effect as well as those based on discriminatory intent.” Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 498, 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014) (citing Griggs, 401 U.S. at 429-30) (emphasis in original) (hyperlink added).

“The unanimous Griggs Court reasoned that Title VII‘s purposes could not be achieved unless the statute was construed to bar practices … neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent [that] operate to ‘freeze’ the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.” Kumar, 180 Wn.2d at 498 (citing Griggs, 401 U.S. at 430) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (hyperlink added).

“The [U.S.] Supreme Court therefore held that Title VII barred even a facially neutral job requirement if that requirement disproportionately burdened a protected class, unless the requirement bore a legitimate relation to ‘job performance,’ that is, unless it constituted a ‘business necessity.'” Id. at 498-99 (citing Griggs, 401 U.S. at 431) (hyperlink added). “The Griggs decision created the cause of action now known as a ‘disparate impact’ claim.'” Kumar, 180 Wn.2d at 499 (citing Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 230, 125 S.Ct. 1536, 161 L.Ed.2d 410 (2005)) (emphasis added).

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

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

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Impact

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

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.