LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

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.

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

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

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 8, 2025April 17, 2025

What is constructive termination in WA State?

Advertisement

What is constructive termination in WA State?

answer:

In WA State, a constructive termination (or discharge) arises “where an employer deliberately makes an employee‘s working conditions intolerable, thereby forcing the employee to resign.” Sneed v. Barna, 80 Wash. App. 843, 849-50, 912 P.2d 1035, review denied, 129 Wash.2d 1023, 919 P.2d 600 (1996) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

Depending on the circumstances of each case, a constructive discharge might support a viable legal theory of employment discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) and/or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and associated federal laws).

THE TERM “DELIBERATELY”

The term “deliberately” entails a deliberate act or a pattern of conduct “of the employer creating the intolerable condition, without regard to the employer’s mental state as to the resulting consequence.” Sneed, 80 Wash.App. at 849-50; Barnett v. Sequim Valley Ranch, LLC, 174 Wn.App. 475, 485, 302 P.3d 500 (Div. 2 2013) (internal citation omitted).

INTOLERABLE WORKING CONDITIONS

Typically, the question of “whether working conditions have risen to an ‘intolerable’ level is a factual question for the jury.” Sneed, 80 Wash.App. at 849 (internal citations omitted). Often, the courts will “look for evidence of either ‘aggravating circumstances’ or a ‘continuous pattern of discriminatory treatment’ to support a constructive discharge claim.” Id. at 850 (internal citations omitted).

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED (OBJECTIVE STANDARD)

The question to be answered is “whether working conditions would have been so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee’s shoes would have felt compelled to resign.” Id. at 849 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “This is an objective standard and an employee’s subjective belief that he had no choice but to resign is irrelevant.” Barnett, 174 Wn.App. at 485 (citing Travis v. Tacoma Pub. Sch. Dist., 120 Wash.App. 542, 551, 85 P.3d 959 (2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

take our constructive discharge test

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» Effective Date for Constructive Discharge (WA State)

» Is Washington State an at-will employment state?

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

» WLAD & The Constructive Discharge Provision*

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

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 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.