LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

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.

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 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?

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 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)