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.
RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
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
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.
“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).
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Under Washington State canons of statutory construction, what is the Pari Materia Rule? 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
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.
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.
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
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*.
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.
RELATED ARTICLES
We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:
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.
Under Washington State laws, what is the definition of hearsay? 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
Definition of Hearsay (WA State)
In the legal profession, there are specific guidelines that dictate how evidence can be used and presented in court. One such guideline involves hearsay, a rule that is central to maintaining fairness and ensuring that the evidence admitted is credible. Washington State law generally follows the principle of excluding hearsay, though there are notable exceptions (NOTE: this article will not address those exceptions). A clear understanding of what hearsay entails, particularly in the context of Washington law, is crucial for litigators.
Rule 801: What Constitutes Hearsay?
In Washington State, Evidence Rule (ER) 801 defines hearsay as follows:
…
(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
ER 801(c)*. In simpler terms, this means that if someone is recounting what they heard or read from another person, that statement is generally regarded as hearsay. (NOTE: Within the ER 801 definition, the term “statement” means “(1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.” Id.* And the term “declarant” means “a person who makes a statement.” Id.*)
example
Thus, Hearsay is essentially an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what is being asserted. In other words, it involves a statement made outside the courtroom, brought into court to establish that the information in the statement is accurate. As a general rule, hearsay is typically not allowed in court due to its inherent unreliability. Since these statements are not made under oath or subjected to cross-examination, they do not undergo the same level of scrutiny as in-court testimony, which can raise questions about their accuracy.
For instance, if a witness testifies, “I overheard my co-worker John say he saw Manager Smith covertly sabotage the plaintiff’s work,” this would be considered hearsay. The purpose of the statement is to prove that manager Smith was indeed the individual that set up the plaintiff for failure. However, since co-worker John is not available to testify in person and be questioned, the statement is generally excluded as unreliable evidence under the hearsay rule.
How Washington State Handles Hearsay
Washington State follows the foundational principles of hearsay outlined in the state’s own Rules of Evidence (specifically Rule 801). These rules provide a structure for determining when a statement qualifies as hearsay and when exceptions to the rule might apply (again, this article does not address those exceptions).
Conclusion
In conclusion, hearsay is an important concept in Washington State law that helps maintain the reliability and fairness of legal proceedings. Defined under ER 801, hearsay refers to an out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of what is being claimed. Generally, hearsay is not allowed in court because it lacks the safeguards of being made under oath or subject to cross-examination; however, there are exceptions beyond the scope of this article. A clear understanding of this rule is essential for legal professionals to ensure only credible evidence is presented in court.
READ MORE
We invite you to read more of our related blog articles:
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.
Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, what criteria do courts use to determine whether workplace harassment is sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the terms and conditions of employment? 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
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (WA STATE): THE PRIMA FACIE CASE
“To establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show the following four elements:
Loeffelholz v. University of Washington*, 175 Wn.2d 264, 275 (Wash. 2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original) (emphasis and hyperlinks added).
ELEMENT 3: TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
“The third element requires that the harassment be sufficiently pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Davis v. West One Automotive Group*, 140 Wn.App. 449 (Div. 3 2007), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1039 (Wash. 2008) (citingGlasgow v. Georgia-Pac. Corp.*, 103 Wash.2d 401, 406, 693 P.2d 708 (1985)).
criteria COURTS USE to determinE WHETHER harassment affects terms or conditions of employment
The Washington State “Court of Appeals has adopted [the following] criteria ‘[t]o determine whether the harassment is such that it affects the conditions of employment …:
[a] the frequency and severity of the discriminatory conduct;
[b] whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and
[c] whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.'”
Blackburn v. Department of Social and Health Services*, 186 Wn.2d 250, 261 n.4 (Wash. 2016) (citing Washington v. Boeing Co., 105 Wn.App. 1, 10, 19 P.3d 1041 (2000) (citing Sangster v. Albertson’s, Inc.*, 99 Wn.App. 156, 163, 991 P.2d 674 (2000) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)))) (second alteration in original) (paragraph formatting and emphasis added).
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.
Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, may an employer require religious affiliation disclosure by employees? 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
WLAD: RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION DISCLOSURE (RCW 49.60.208)
The relevant law can be found under RCW 49.60.208, and it states as follows:
(1) Require an employee to disclose his or her sincerely held religious affiliation or beliefs, unless the disclosure is for the purpose of providing a religious accommodation at the request of the employee; or
(2) Require or authorize an employee to disclose information about the religious affiliation of another employee, unless the individual whose religious affiliation will be disclosed
(a) expressly consents to the disclosure, and
(b) has knowledge of the purpose for the disclosure.
Under this exception, an employer may require an employee to disclose their “sincerely held religious affiliation or beliefs” if it is for the purpose of providing an employee-requested religious accommodation. Read more about this topic by viewing our article: Failure to Accommodate Religious Practices.
EXCEPTION — BOTH EXPRESS CONSENT AND KNOWLEDGE OF PURPOSE
Under an additional exception, an employer may either authorize or require an employee (“Revealing Employee”) to reveal information about another employee’s (“Subject Employee’s”) religious affiliation if the Subject Employee both expressly consents to the disclosure and has knowledge of the reason for the revelation.
REMEDIES
Under the WLAD, “[a]ny 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).
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.
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
SUING LOCAL GOVERNMENT — TORTIOUS CONDUCT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND THEIR AGENTS
In Washington State, the process and requirements for individuals to initiate legal proceedings against local (as opposed to state) government entities or their subdivisions are dictated by RCW 4.96*, known as the “Actions Against Political Subdivisions, Municipal and Quasi-Municipal Corporations” statute — or, simply, the “local government tort claim filing statute.”
This legislation details the procedures for filing claims against political subdivisions and municipal bodies–such as counties, cities, towns, special districts, municipal corporations as defined in RCW 39.50.010*, quasi-municipal corporations, any joint municipal utility services authorities, any entities created by public agencies under RCW 39.34.030*, or public hospitals–ensuring that these actions are handled with transparency and fairness while safeguarding public entities from excessive legal challenges.
THE RELEVANT LAW — RCW 4.96.010
The relevant law states as follows:
RCW 4.96.010
Tortious conduct of local governmental entities—Liability for damages.
(1) All local governmental entities, whether acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of their tortious conduct, or the tortious conduct of their past or present officers, employees, or volunteers while performing or in good faith purporting to perform their official duties, to the same extent as if they were a private person or corporation. Filing a claim for damages within the time allowed by law shall be a condition precedent to the commencement of any action claiming damages. The laws specifying the content for such claims shall be liberally construed so that substantial compliance therewith will be deemed satisfactory.
(2) Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, for the purposes of this chapter, “local governmental entity” means a county, city, town, special district, municipal corporation as defined in RCW 39.50.010*, quasi-municipal corporation, any joint municipal utility services authority, any entity created by public agencies under RCW 39.34.030*, or public hospital.
(3) For the purposes of this chapter, “volunteer” is defined according to RCW 51.12.035*.
Presentment and filing requirements — RCW 4.96.020
The associated “Presentment and Filing” section (RCW 4.96.020*) outlines the following procedures for filing claims for damages against local governmental entities, their officers, employees, or volunteers acting in an official capacity, specifically in cases involving tortious conduct.
1. Applicability of the Law — RCW 4.96.020(1)-(2)*:
The provisions apply to all claims for damages against local governmental entities and their officials. The governing body of each entity must appoint an agent to receive claims for damages, and this agent’s identity and contact information must be recorded with the county auditor.
Claims must be submitted to the designated agent within the applicable statute of limitations. Claims are considered presented when they are delivered in person or “received by the agent by regular mail, registered mail, or certified mail, with return receipt requested, to the agent or other person designated to accept delivery at the agent’s office.” Id. If a local government entity fails to meet these requirements, it forfeits the right to raise certain defenses.
3. Claim Form Requirements — RCW 4.96.020(3)(a)-(b)*:
Starting from July 26, 2009, claims must be filed using a standard tort claim form, which is available on the Department of Enterprise Services’ (Office of Risk Management) website, except as allowed under (c) of this subsection.. The form must include:
(a) The claimant’s name, contact information, and date of birth.
(b) A description of the incident, injury, and the circumstances surrounding it.
(c) Details such as the time and place of the incident, names of involved individuals, and the amount of damages claimed.
(d) The claimant’s current residence at the time the claim arose and when the claim is presented.
The claim must be signed by the claimant or their authorized representative.
4. Availability of Forms and Instructions — RCW 4.96.020(3)(c), (e)*:
Local entities are required to make the standard form and instructions available and the name, address, and business hours of the agent of the local governmental entity.
“If a local governmental entity chooses to also make available its own tort claim form in lieu of the standard tort claim form, the form:
(i) May require additional information beyond what is specified under this section, but the local governmental entity may not deny a claim because of the claimant’s failure to provide that additional information[.]
(ii) Must not require the claimant’s social security number; and
(iii) Must include instructions on how the form is to be presented and the name, address, and business hours of the agent of the local governmental entity appointed to receive the claim.
RCW 4.96.020(c)*. “Presenting either the standard tort claim form or the local government tort claim form satisfies the requirements of this chapter*.” RCW 4.96.020(e)* (hyperlink added).
5. Waiver for Incorrect Forms — RCW 4.96.020(3)(d)*:
If the local entity’s form does not comply with the requirements or lists the wrong agent, the entity waives any defense related to those issues, including improper claim presentation or missing information.
The amount of damages specified on the claim form is not admissible at trial.
7. Waiting Period Before Filing Suit — RCW 4.96.020(4)*:
A claimant cannot file a lawsuit for tortious conduct against any local governmental entity, or against any local governmental entity’s officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such capacity, until at least 60 calendar days after properly presenting the claim to the agent. During this 60-day period, the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit is tolled (i.e., suspended). If a lawsuit is filed within five court days after this period, it is considered to have been filed on the first day after the 60-day waiting period.
“With respect to the content of claims under this section and all procedural requirements in this section, this section must be liberally construed so that substantial compliance will be deemed satisfactory.” Id.
CONCLUSION
In Washington State, the local government tort-claim filing statute (i.e., RCW 4.96*) provides a structured process for filing tort claims against local governments in Washington State, with clear instructions regarding the necessary forms, deadlines, and requirements. It emphasizes a liberal approach to compliance to ensure that valid claims are not dismissed due to minor procedural issues.
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
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (WA STATE)
The concept of circumstantial evidence plays an important role in establishing claims and defenses in workplace disputes. While many people are familiar with direct evidence–such as eyewitness testimony or a signed contract–circumstantial evidence can often be just as important in shaping the outcome of a case. In the context of Washington State employment law, understanding what circumstantial evidence is and how it is applied can be essential for both employers and employees navigating disputes.
general definition
Circumstantial evidence is defined as follows:
1. Evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation. — Also termed indirect evidence; oblique evidence. … 2. All evidence that is not given by eyewitness testimony.
Black’s Law Dictionary 595 (Deluxe 8th ed. 2004) (hyperlink added). Thus, circumstantial evidence refers to evidence that indirectly supports a fact or conclusion by inferring its existence from other facts or circumstances. Unlike direct evidence, which provides straightforward proof of a claim (e.g., a video recording of an event), circumstantial evidence relies on a chain of inferences that help establish a fact or raise a presumption about an event or situation.
circumstantial evidence in employment law
In Washington State, as in many other jurisdictions, circumstantial evidence is commonly used in employment law cases to support claims of wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, and other workplace-related issues. In the absence of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence can be pivotal in proving or disproving an employer‘s or employee‘s allegations.
example
For example, in cases of alleged wrongful termination, an employee might not have direct evidence (such as a text message explicitly stating the basis for termination) but can offer circumstantial evidence in support of their claim. This could include evidence such as a history of discriminatory comments, a pattern of different treatment between employees of different races, or the timing of the termination shortly after the employee filed a discrimination complaint — NOTE: these are only a few examples of circumstantial evidence that do not exhaust all possibilities or protected classes.
READ MORE
We invite you to read more of our related blog articles:
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.
