LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

February 27, 2025

What are the elements of Negligent Supervision in WA State?

IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.

Advertisement

FAQ: What are the elements of Negligent Supervision in WA State?

answer:

To establish a prima facie case of negligent supervision, a plaintiff must show:

(1) an employee acted outside the scope of his or her employment;

(2) the employee presented a risk of harm to other employees;

(3) the employer knew, or should have known of the risk in the exercise of reasonable case that the employee posed a risk to others; and

(4) the employer’s failure to supervise was the proximate cause of injuries to other employees.

Briggs v. Nova Services, 135 Wn. App. 955, 966-67, 147 P.3d 616 (2006) (internal citations omitted) (paragraph formatting added).

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

» Negligent Hiring (WA State)

» Negligent Retention (WA State)

» Negligent Supervision (WA State)

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.

February 26, 2025February 26, 2025

The Litigation Privilege (WA State)

In Washington State, what is the litigation privilege? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE (WA STATE)

In Washington State, “[t]he ‘litigation privilege’ is a judicially created privilege that protects participants—including attorneys, parties, and witnesses—in a judicial proceeding against civil liability for statements they make in the course of that proceeding.” Young v. Rayan, 27 Wn.App. 2d 500, 533 P.3d 123 (Wash. App. 2023), review denied, 2 Wash.3d 1008 (Wash. 2023) (internal citations omitted).

witness immunity

When applied to witnesses, this privilege is often referred to as “witness immunity.” See id. Under this principle, witnesses in judicial proceedings are generally granted absolute immunity from legal action based on their testimony, provided their statements are related to the litigation at hand. See id. “Statements are absolutely privileged if they are pertinent or material to the redress or relief sought, whether or not the statements are legally sufficient to obtain that relief.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRIVILEGE

However, statements that are unrelated to the litigation do not receive this protection; not every incidental remark made in court will escape liability. See id. But the threshold for determining relevance is not overly stringent: “As the Restatement (Second) of Torts indicates, a statement ‘need not be strictly relevant to any issue’ so long as it bears ‘some reference to the subject matter of the … litigation.'” Id. (citing RESTATEMENT § 586, comment c).

THE GENERAL RULE

Thus, the Litigation Privilege “prohibits liability stemming from statements

(1) made in the course of a judicial proceeding

(2) that are pertinent to the litigation.

Id. “Pertinency is a question of law reviewed de novo.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

THE POLICY

“The purpose of the litigation privilege doctrine is to encourage frank, open, untimorous argument and testimony and to discourage retaliatory, derivative lawsuits.” Id.

ATTORNEYS

“As applied to attorneys, it furthers ‘a public policy of securing to [counsel] as officers of the court the utmost freedom in their efforts to secure justice for their clients.’” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (alteration in original).

WITNESS TESTIMONY

“As applied to witness testimony, it preserves ‘the integrity of the judicial process by encouraging full and frank testimony.'” Id. (internal citations omitted). “The rule addresses the concern that a witness may either be reluctant to come forward to testify in the first place or shade their testimony ‘to magnify uncertainties, and thus to deprive the finder of fact of candid, objective, and undistorted evidence.'” Id. (internal citation omitted).

LEARN MORE

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

February 20, 2025February 24, 2025

Definition of Tort

Under Washington State laws, what is the definition of the term “tort”? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

DEFINITION OF THE TERM “TORT”

Black’s Law Dictionary (Deluxe Eighth Edition) defines the term “tort” as follows:

[1.] A civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which a remedy may be obtained, usu. in the form of damages; a breach of a duty that the law imposes on persons who stand in a particular relation to one another. [2.] … The branch of law dealing with such wrongs.

Id. at 1526. Thus, a civil wrong other than breach of contract is called a “tort”; correspondingly, a criminal wrong is called a “crime.”

EXAMPLES OF TORTS COMMONLY LITIGATED WITH CLAIMS UNDER EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAWS

Examples of torts commonly litigated with claims under employment-discrimination laws include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Negligent Hiring

2. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress*

3. Negligent Misrepresentation

4. Negligent Retention

5. Negligent Supervision

6. The Tort of Battery

7. The Tort of Outrage (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

need help?

If you need legal help, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case; our law office litigates claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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.

February 14, 2025July 24, 2025

WSHRC: Concurrent Remedies

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

Advertisement

I. Understanding WAC 162-08-062: Concurrent Remedies Under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination

Washington State’s commitment to eradicating discrimination is firmly established under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), codified in Chapter 49.60* RCW. A critical regulation within this framework is WAC 162-08-062*, which clarifies how individuals may pursue remedies when facing unlawful discrimination, particularly when multiple legal avenues are available.

This regulation addresses the doctrine of concurrent remedies, ensuring complainants understand how administrative, civil, and criminal processes intersect under state law. It states as follows:

WAC 162-08-062
Concurrent remedies—Other remedies.

Except as otherwise provided by RCW 49.60.340*, the law against discrimination preserves the right of a complainant or aggrieved person to simultaneously pursue other available civil or criminal remedies for an alleged violation of the law in addition to, or in lieu of, filing an administrative complaint of discrimination with the commission, with the following limitations:

(1) Abeyance—Real estate transactions. A complaint of an unfair practice in a real estate transaction filed concurrently with the commission and another federal, state or local instrumentality with whom the commission has entered into a cooperative agreement under the terms of RCW 49.60.226* or other provision of law will be held in abeyance during the pendency of the other proceeding unless the other proceeding has been deferred pending state action under the terms of the cooperative agreement.

(2) Abeyance—General rule. A complaint of an unfair practice other than in real estate transactions will be held in abeyance during the pendency of a case in federal or state court litigating the same claim, whether under the law against discrimination or a similar law, unless the executive director or the commissioners direct that the complaint continue to be processed. A complaint of an unfair practice other than in real estate transactions will not be held in abeyance during pendency of a federal, state, or local administrative proceeding, unless the executive director or commissioners determine that it should be held in abeyance.

(3) No complainant or aggrieved person may secure relief from more than one governmental agency, instrumentality or tribunal for the same harm or injury.

(4) Where the complainant or aggrieved person elects to pursue simultaneous claims in more than one forum, the factual and legal determinations issued by the first tribunal to rule on the claims may, in some circumstances, be binding on all or portions of the claims pending before other tribunals.

WAC 162-08-062* (emphasis added). Here’s a breakdown of the key provisions:

II. Breakdown of Key Provisions — WAC 162-08-062

1. Right to Pursue Other Remedies

The core principle of WAC 162-08-062* is that individuals alleging discrimination are not limited to filing a complaint with the WSHRC. Instead, they retain the right to simultaneously pursue:

• Civil litigation, such as filing a lawsuit in state or federal court.

• Criminal complaints, if applicable.

• Other administrative proceedings, including those conducted by local human rights agencies or federal bodies like the EEOC.

This right is preserved except where otherwise limited by RCW 49.60.340*, which pertains to the exclusivity of certain remedies under collective bargaining agreements.

2. Real Estate Complaints and Cooperative Agreements

Under subsection (1), discrimination complaints involving real estate transactions are subject to special treatment. If a complainant files a real estate discrimination complaint both with the WSHRC and another agency (e.g., HUD) with whom the WSHRC has a cooperative agreement, the state complaint will generally be held in abeyance—or temporarily paused—while the other agency investigates.

This provision avoids duplicative investigations and streamlines enforcement when multiple agencies have jurisdiction. However, if the cooperating agency defers to the state under the terms of their agreement, the WSHRC will proceed with the case.

3. General Rule for Other Claims

In non-real estate discrimination cases, if the same claim is being actively litigated in a state or federal court, the WSHRC will typically pause its investigation unless the Executive Director or Commission decides it should continue.

However, if the matter is pending in another administrative forum, the WSHRC will generally continue its investigation unless the leadership determines a pause is appropriate. This flexibility helps prevent inconsistent findings and conserves public resources.

4. Single Recovery Rule

Per subsection (3), a complainant cannot obtain relief from multiple government entities for the same harm or injury. This prevents double recovery—a legal concept that bars individuals from receiving overlapping damages from different sources for a single injury.

For example, a successful damages award from a federal court bars a separate damages award for the same incident from the WSHRC or a local human rights agency.

5. Binding Effect of First Decision

Finally, subsection (4) warns complainants of the potential legal implications of pursuing claims in multiple forums. When different tribunals review the same set of facts and legal issues, the first body to issue a ruling may have a binding effect on subsequent proceedings.

This could mean that factual or legal determinations made in one forum may limit or preclude arguments in another—particularly under the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

III. Conclusion

WAC 162-08-062* reflects Washington State’s effort to offer flexibility to discrimination complainants while maintaining the integrity and efficiency of its administrative and judicial systems. By allowing—but carefully regulating—concurrent remedies, the law ensures access to justice without unnecessary duplication or conflicting outcomes. Anyone considering multiple legal paths should do so with a full understanding of both their rights and responsibilities under the law.

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: Procedure When None Is Specified

» 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

February 13, 2025February 13, 2025

What are the elements of Disparate Impact in WA State?

Advertisement

FAQ: What are the elements of Disparate Impact in WA State?

answer:

The Washington State Supreme Court “has held that the WLAD [(Washington Law Against Discrimination]) creates a cause of action for disparate impact.” Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 503, 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014) (citing E-Z Loader Boat Trailers, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 106 Wn.2d 901, 909, 726 P.2d 439 (1986)) (hyperlinks added).

“To establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, the plaintiff must show that[:]

(1) a facially neutral employment practice

(2) falls more harshly on a protected class.

Id. at 503 (citing Oliver v. P. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 106 Wn.2d 675, 679, & n.1, 724 P.2d 1003 (1986)) (internal citation omitted) (paragraph formatting added).

WLAD REMEDIES

Victims of discrimination in violation of the WLAD may seek generous remedies. “Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in violation of … [the Washington Law Against Discrimination] shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter* or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964* as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601* et seq.).” RCW 49.60.030(2)*.

Read Our Related Articles

» Definition of Prima Facie Case*

» Disparate Impact

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

» Origin of the Disparate Impact Claim

» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Impact

» What is WA State’s law against employment discrimination?

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

NEED HELP?

February 9, 2025February 19, 2025

Negligent Hiring (WA State)

Under Washington State laws, what is the tort of negligent hiring (a tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, entitling the victim to remedies typically in the form of damages)? 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

NEGLIGENT HIRING IN WASHINGTON STATE

To successfully litigate an employment-based negligence claim, the plaintiff must establish the basic elements of negligence: duty; breach of duty; causation; and damages. In 2018, the Washington State Supreme Court established the test (“Test”) for negligent hiring of an employee by adopting the following formulation used by the Courts of Appeals:

[T]o hold an employer liable for negligently hiring … an employee who is incompetent or unfit, a plaintiff must show that the employer had knowledge of the employee’s unfitness or failed to exercise reasonable care to discover unfitness before hiring or retaining the employee.

Anderson v. Soap Lake Sch. Dist., 423 P.3d 197, 206 (Wash. 2018) (citing Scott v. Blanchet High Sch., 50 Wash. App. 37, 43, 747 P.2d 1124 (1987) ; see also Carlsen v. Wackenhut Corp., 73 Wash. App. 247, 252, 868 P.2d 882 (1994) (“To prove negligent hiring in Washington, the plaintiff must demonstrate that … the employer knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known, of its employee’s unfitness at the time of hiring.”)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS

In Anderson v. Soap Lake Sch. Dist., the Washington State Supreme Court determined that the Test “parallels the rule in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 307 (Am. Law Inst. 1965):

It is negligence to use an instrumentality, whether a human being or a thing, which the actor knows or should know to be so incompetent, inappropriate, or defective, that its use involves an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

Anderson, 423 P.3d at 206.

NEGLIGENT HIRING VS. NEGLIGENT RETENTION

Negligent retention is also a Washington State tort (I will address this legal theory in a separate article). According to the Anderson Court:

The difference between negligent hiring and negligent retention is timing. Negligent hiring occurs at the time of hiring, while negligent retention occurs during the course of employment.

Id. (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added).

CONCLUSION

Under the tort of negligent hiring, a plaintiff may hold an employer liable “for negligently hiring … an employee who is incompetent or unfit if the plaintiff shows that the employer had knowledge of the employee’s unfitness or failed to exercise reasonable care to discover unfitness before hiring or retaining the employee.” Id.

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

» Negligent Retention (WA State)

» Negligent Supervision (WA State)

need help?

If you need legal help, 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.

February 6, 2025February 6, 2025

Definition of Because of Sex (Title VII)

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, what is the definition of “because of sex”? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter, “Title VII”) is a vital federal law that protects certain individuals (including employees) against certain types of discrimination and retaliation; it also safeguards certain types of accommodations.

DISCRIMINATION AND PROTECTED CLASSES

Title VII outlaws discrimination against individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex (including pregnancy and related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity). The law “also makes it unlawful to use policies or practices that seem neutral but have the effect of discriminating against people because of their race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity), or national origin.” U.S. Department of Justice Website, Laws We Enforce* (last visited 1/10/23).

AGE & DISABILITY: Other federal laws protect against age discrimination (i.e., Age Discrimination in Employment Act or “ADEA”) and disability discrimination (i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act or “ADA”). However, this article will address solely Title VII.

RETALIATION

Retaliation against an individual who has reported discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or taken part in an employment discrimination investigation or litigation is likewise prohibited by Title VII.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS

Lastly, applicants’ and employees‘ genuinely held religious practices must be reasonably accommodated by employers under the legislation, unless doing so would put an undue burden on the employer‘s ability to conduct business.

SCOPE OF TITLE VII

Title VII applies to certain employers (both private and public with 15 or more employees), employment agencies, labor organizations, and training programs and makes it “unlawful to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:

» Hiring and firing;
»Compensation, assignment, or classification of workers;
»Transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
»Job advertisements and recruitment;
»Testing;
»Use of employer facilities;
»Training and apprenticeship programs;
»Retirement plans, leave, and benefits; or
»Other terms and conditions of employment.

U.S. Department of Justice Website, Laws We Enforce* (last visited 1/10/23) (emphasis added). Certain Title VII terms are defined by law.

TITLE VII DEFINITION OF “BECAUSE OF SEX”

Title VII defines “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” as follows:

42 U.S. Code § 2000e – Definitions

…

(k)The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy*, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy*, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons* not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e–2(h)* of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise.

This subsection shall not require an employer to pay for health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where medical complications have arisen from an abortion: Provided, That nothing herein shall preclude an employer from providing abortion benefits or otherwise affect bargaining agreements in regard to abortion.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k)* (paragraph formatting and hyperlinks added). Victims of discrimination in violation of Title VII may seek enforcement through the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

ENFORCEMENT

“The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws[, including Title VII,] that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and related conditions, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.” US E.E.O.C. Website, Overview* (last visited 1/10/23).

Learn more about filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC* by visiting their official website*.

We invite you to read more of our related blog articles:

» EEOC: The Notice of Right to Sue

» Fair Employment Practice Agencies

» The Intersection of WSHRC and EEOC*

» Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

» Unlawful Employment Agency Practices (Title VII)

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

need help?

February 1, 2025February 12, 2025

Filing a Workers’ Compensation Claim and Discrimination (WA State)

Filing a Workers' Compensation Claim and Discrimination (WA State)

Under Washington State workers’ compensation laws, may an employer discriminate against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

THE WASHINGTON INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE ACT (“ACT”) AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS: DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED

“Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act provides that ‘[n]o employer may discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed or communicated to the employer an intent to file a claim for compensation or exercises any rights provided under this title.'” Robel v. Roundup Corporation, 148 Wn.2d 35, 48-49 (Wash 2002) (citing RCW 51.48.025(1)) (alteration in original) (emphasis added).

The relevant law, RCW 51.48.025(1), states as follows:

Retaliation by employer prohibited—Investigation—Remedies.

(1) No employer may discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed or communicated to the employer an intent to file a claim for compensation or exercises any rights provided under this title. However, nothing in this section prevents an employer from taking any action against a worker for other reasons including, but not limited to, the worker’s failure to observe health or safety standards adopted by the employer, or the frequency or nature of the worker’s job-related accidents.

Id. (emphasis added).

THE COMPLAINT PROCESS

Under the Act, “[a]ny employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by an employer in violation of this section may file a complaint with the director alleging discrimination within ninety days of the date of the alleged violation.” RCW 51.48.025(2) (emphasis added). In this case, the term “‘Director’ means the director of labor and industries.” RCW 51.08.060.

Accordingly, “[u]pon receipt of such complaint, the director shall cause an investigation to be made as the director deems appropriate. Within ninety days of the receipt of a complaint filed under this section, the director shall notify the complainant of his or her determination.” Id.

“If upon such investigation, it is determined that this section has been violated, the director shall bring an action in the superior court of the county in which the violation is alleged to have occurred.” Id.

RIGHT OF PRIVATE ACTION — ADDITIONAL LEGAL THEORIES

However, “[i]f the director determines that this section has not been violated, the employee may institute the action on his or her own behalf.” RCW 51.48.025(3).

IMPORTANT: Pursuant to other laws (e.g., The Washington Law Against Discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, WA State torts, etc.), additional legal theories may form the basis for relief depending on the circumstances of each case. Speak to a knowledgeable employment attorney to learn more.

REMEDIES

“In any action brought under this section, the superior court shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to restrain violations of subsection (1) of this section and to order all appropriate relief including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee with back pay.” RCW 51.48.025(4) (referring to RCW 51.48.025(1)).

LEARN MORE

January 23, 2025January 23, 2025

The Pari Materia Rule

Under Washington State canons of statutory construction, what is the Pari Materia Rule? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION

A canon of construction is “[a] rule used in construing legal instruments, esp. contracts and statutes.” Black’s Law Dictionary 219 (8th ed. 2004) (emphasis added).

NOTE: “A frequent criticism of the canons [of construction], made forcefully by Professor Llewellyn many years ago, is that for every canon one might bring to bear on a point there is an equal and opposite canon. This is an exaggeration; but what is true is that there is a canon to support every possible result.” Id. (citing Richard A. Posner, The Federal Courts: Crisis and Reform 276 (1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

THE PARI MATERIA RULE: INTERPRETING CONFLICTING STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Legal statutes can sometimes be difficult to interpret, particularly when different sections of a law appear to contradict one another. In such cases, courts rely on certain principles of interpretation to clarify the law’s intent. One such principle is known as pari materia, a rule of construction used when two provisions within the same statute or related statutes seem to conflict. The rule states as follows:

Reading the statutes in parimateria the rule of construction applies, that as between two conflicting parts of a statute, that part latest in order of position will prevail, where the first part is not more clear and explicit than the last part.

Schneider v. Forcier, 67 Wn.2d 161, 164, 406 P.2d 935 (Wash. 1965) (internal citation omitted).

Thus, the pari materia rule states that, when conflicting provisions exist, the more recent one—meaning the provision that comes last in the text—should generally take precedence. However, there’s an important exception to this. If the earlier provision is more precise or clearer in its wording, then it may still outweigh the later provision. This ensures that the most unambiguous and straightforward part of the law is followed, even if it isn’t the most recent.

THE POLICY BEHIND THE RULE

The rationale behind this rule is based on the idea that legal texts evolve over time through amendments, updates, or revisions. As laws change, they may introduce new provisions that supersede older ones. However, if the latest change is unclear or in conflict with the earlier law, courts prioritize clarity and explicit meaning to maintain consistency and avoid confusion in the legal system.

In practice, this rule helps resolve contradictions in a way that reflects the likely intent of lawmakers, allowing the law to adapt to new circumstances while maintaining a logical structure. By applying pari materia, judges can ensure that the most recent and relevant expression of the law is given proper weight, unless it conflicts with the clear intent of previous provisions.

CONCLUSION

The pari materia rule is an essential tool for interpreting statutes that contain conflicting sections. By giving preference to the most recent provisions, while allowing earlier, clearer provisions to take precedence when necessary, it helps ensure that the law remains consistent, coherent, and true to its original intent. This rule strikes a balance between respecting legislative changes and honoring the clarity of earlier laws.

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 17, 2025August 21, 2025

WSHRC: Protective Orders

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

Advertisement

Understanding Protective Orders Under Washington’s Anti-Discrimination Law: A Closer Look at WAC 162-08-096

When people hear the term protective order, they often think of restraining orders in domestic violence cases. But in Washington State’s legal system, protective orders can also play a vital role in protecting sensitive information during legal investigations—especially in cases handled by the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC).

One such rule is WAC 162-08-096*, a regulation that gives the WSHRC the authority to protect individuals and businesses from unnecessary harm during the information-gathering process in discrimination investigations. This blog post breaks down what this rule means in plain English, why it matters, and how it may affect you if you’re involved in one of these proceedings.

What Is WAC 162-08-096?

WAC 162-08-096* is part of Washington’s administrative rules that guide how the WSHRC handles discrimination complaints. Specifically, this rule allows the chairperson of the Commission to issue protective orders—official directives that limit how certain information is shared or used during an investigation. The relevant law states as follows:

WAC 162-08-096
Protective orders.

(1) Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom information is sought pursuant to WAC 162-08-09501*, and for good cause shown, the chairperson of the commission may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense caused by revealing private information, or trade secrets, including all orders a court can make under CR 26(c).

(2) If a motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the chairperson may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit information to be revealed subject to the provisions of WAC 162-08-097*.

(3) The chairperson may, on such terms and conditions as are just, grant a protective order sealing the produced documents pursuant to WAC 162-04-035*.

WAC 162-08-096*.

Protective orders are designed to prevent:

• Annoyance

• Embarrassment

• Oppression

• Undue burden or expense

These concerns may arise, for example, when sensitive personal information or trade secrets are requested by the Commission as part of a discrimination investigation.

When Can a Protective Order Be Requested?

A protective order under WAC 162-08-096* can be requested in two main ways:

1. By a party to the case – This could be the person who filed the discrimination complaint or the person or entity being accused.

2. By someone who’s being asked to provide information – Even if they’re not directly involved in the case.

The person requesting the order must show “good cause,” meaning a valid reason supported by facts. The chairperson then decides whether justice requires limiting how the information is disclosed.

What Can the Chairperson Do?

If the chairperson finds good cause, they can issue a protective order similar to those a judge can issue under civil court rules (specifically Civil Rule 26(c)*). These orders might:

• Restrict who can see the information.

• Limit how the information can be used.

• Require documents to be sealed (kept confidential).

• Prevent certain types of questions in a deposition.

• Allow disclosure only under specific conditions (e.g., only to attorneys).

The goal is to balance the need for a full investigation with the right to privacy or protection of confidential information.

What Happens If the Request Is Denied?

If the request for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the chairperson may still set fair terms and conditions for how the information must be disclosed. In such cases, the party or person would still need to provide the requested information—but possibly under safeguards outlined in WAC 162-08-097*, which deals with confidentiality and limits on how that information is used.

Sealing Documents

The chairperson may also issue an order to seal documents, meaning they become part of the official file but are not available to the public. This is governed by a related rule: WAC 162-04-035*, which allows for keeping sensitive materials out of the public record if justice so requires.

Why This Matters

If you’re involved in a WSHRC investigation—whether you’re making a discrimination complaint, responding to one, or simply being asked to provide information—you have the right to ask for protection if the request invades your privacy or risks exposing confidential business information.

WAC 162-08-096* ensures that the fact-finding process doesn’t come at an unreasonable personal or professional cost. It’s one of the many ways Washington law aims to protect people from both discrimination and unnecessary harm during the process of addressing it.

Key Takeaway

WAC 162-08-096* gives individuals and businesses a tool to protect themselves from unfair exposure during discrimination investigations. If you’re facing a request for sensitive information in one of these cases, you may be able to ask for a protective order. Consulting an attorney familiar with Washington’s anti-discrimination laws can help you navigate this process and assert your rights effectively.

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: Procedure When None Is Specified

» 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

FAQ: What are the elements of Negligent Supervision in WA State?

answer:

RELATED ARTICLES

NEED HELP?

THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE (WA STATE)

witness immunity

EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRIVILEGE

THE GENERAL RULE

THE POLICY

ATTORNEYS

WITNESS TESTIMONY

LEARN MORE

DEFINITION OF THE TERM “TORT”

EXAMPLES OF TORTS COMMONLY LITIGATED WITH CLAIMS UNDER EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAWS

need help?

I. Understanding WAC 162-08-062: Concurrent Remedies Under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination

II. Breakdown of Key Provisions — WAC 162-08-062

1. Right to Pursue Other Remedies

2. Real Estate Complaints and Cooperative Agreements

3. General Rule for Other Claims

4. Single Recovery Rule

5. Binding Effect of First Decision

III. Conclusion

RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

FAQ: What are the elements of Disparate Impact in WA State?

answer:

WLAD REMEDIES

Read Our Related Articles

NEED HELP?

NEGLIGENT HIRING IN WASHINGTON STATE

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS

NEGLIGENT HIRING VS. NEGLIGENT RETENTION

CONCLUSION

RELATED ARTICLES

need help?

TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

DISCRIMINATION AND PROTECTED CLASSES

RETALIATION

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS

SCOPE OF TITLE VII

TITLE VII DEFINITION OF “BECAUSE OF SEX”

ENFORCEMENT

READ MORE

need help?

THE WASHINGTON INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE ACT (“ACT”) AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS: DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED

THE COMPLAINT PROCESS

RIGHT OF PRIVATE ACTION — ADDITIONAL LEGAL THEORIES

REMEDIES

LEARN MORE

CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION

THE PARI MATERIA RULE: INTERPRETING CONFLICTING STATUTORY PROVISIONS

THE POLICY BEHIND THE RULE

CONCLUSION

LEARN MORE

Understanding Protective Orders Under Washington’s Anti-Discrimination Law: A Closer Look at WAC 162-08-096

What Is WAC 162-08-096?

When Can a Protective Order Be Requested?

What Can the Chairperson Do?

What Happens If the Request Is Denied?

Sealing Documents

Why This Matters

Key Takeaway

RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE