Under Washington canons of statutory construction, what is the Ejusdem Generis Rule? 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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy before proceeding.)
Advertisement
THE EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE
“The ejusdem generis rule requires that general terms appearing in a statute in connection with specific terms are to be given meaning and effect only to the extent that the general terms suggest items similar to those designated by the specific terms. In short, specific terms modify or restrict the application of general terms where both are used in sequence.” Malo v. Alaska Trawl Fisheries, Inc., 92 Wn.App. 927, 930, 965 P.2d 1124 (Wash.App.Div. 1 1998) (citing Dean v. McFarland, 81 Wn.2d 215, 221, 500 P.2d 1244 (1972)) (hyperlink added).
EXAMPLE: MALO v. ALASKA TRAWL FISHERIES, INC.
In Malo, the statute at issue states as follows:
It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by this chapter, or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter.
Id. (citing RCW 49.60.210(1)) (emphasis added).
In this case, there was an issue as to the meaning of the term “or other person.” The court applied two canons: (1) “[p]rovisions in a statute are to be read in the context of the statute as a whole[,]” and (2) the Ejusdem Generis Rule–holding that “the general term ‘or other person’ is restricted by the words ’employer,’ ’employment agency’ and ‘labor union.'” Id. (citing Pope v. University of Washington, 121 Wash.2d 479, 489, 852 P.2d 1055 (1993); RCW 49.60.210(1)).
Thus, “[t]he section, read as a whole, is directed at entities functionally similar to employers who discriminate by engaging in conduct similar to discharging or expelling a person who has opposed practices forbidden by RCW 49.60.” Id. (hyperlink added).
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