{"id":352,"date":"2021-07-08T13:16:29","date_gmt":"2021-07-08T20:16:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/?p=352"},"modified":"2024-10-20T12:33:54","modified_gmt":"2024-10-20T19:33:54","slug":"barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/","title":{"rendered":"Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This is a case summary of <em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\">Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co.<\/a><\/em>, 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979). Primary subjects include, but are not limited to the following:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em><strong>\u00bb<\/strong>\u00a0 PROTECTED CLASSES (PERCEIVED DISABILITY)<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em><strong>\u00bb<\/strong>\u00a0 TERMINATION BASED UPON PERCEIVED (NONEXISTENT) DISABILITY<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><em><strong>IMPORTANT:<\/strong> This article is for informational purposes only and<span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\"> is based upon my point of view. This is not a resource for the actual and complete appellate court opinion. 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 <\/span><a style=\"color: #800000;\" href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/disclaimer\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy<\/a><span style=\"font-size: 1rem;\"> before proceeding.<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><center><em><span style=\"color: #00ffff;\">Advertisement<\/span><\/em><\/center><br \/>\n<script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-6555531347302259\" crossorigin=\"anonymous\"><\/script><br \/>\n<!-- Responsive 2017 --><br \/>\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\" style=\"display: block;\" data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-6555531347302259\" data-ad-slot=\"3088293120\" data-ad-format=\"auto\" data-full-width-responsive=\"true\"><\/ins><br \/>\n<script>\n     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\n<\/script><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<figure id=\"attachment_210\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-210\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-210 size-medium\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-2.png?resize=300%2C200&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-2.png?resize=300%2C200&amp;ssl=1 300w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-2.png?w=375&amp;ssl=1 375w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-210\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979)<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h5 style=\"text-align: left;\">CASE SUMMARY &#8211; 11 Facts:<\/h5>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[1]<\/strong>\u00a0 Barnes was hired by WNGC in the early part of 1975 as a &#8216;helper&#8217; on the natural gas line.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[2]<\/strong>\u00a0 He alleges that after approximately one month&#8217;s employment at WNGC his employment was terminated because of an erroneous belief on WNGC&#8217;s part that he suffered from epilepsy.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[3]<\/strong>\u00a0 Barnes contends that he does not now, nor did he ever have, epilepsy.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[4]<\/strong>\u00a0 He alleges that his termination by WNGC was based upon a perceived but nonexistent handicap in violation of RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=49.60.180\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">49.60.180<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[5]<\/strong>\u00a0 After filing its answer and affirmative defenses, a motion for judgment on the pleadings was made by WNGC.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[6]\u00a0 <\/strong>The trial court entered judgment dismissing the action, holding: (1) That those portions of RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=49.60\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">49.60<\/a> which seek to prohibit discrimination on the basis of &#8216;any sensory, mental, or physical handicap&#8217; are unconstitutionally vague and, therefore, void and alternatively, (2) That plaintiff is without standing to bring and action against defendant pursuant to the provisions of RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=49.60\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">49.60<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[7]\u00a0 <\/strong>After the determination by the trial court, the Supreme Court in <em>Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul &amp; P.Ry v. Human Rights Comm&#8217;n<\/em>, 87 Wash.2d 802, 557 P.2d 307 (1976), held that provision of the Act pertinent here not unconstitutionally vague.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[8]\u00a0 <\/strong>The unconstitutionality of the statute is not argued by WNGC, except [the Court is] \u2026 urged to reverse the ruling that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague for the reasons stated in the respondent Milwaukee R.R.&#8217;s brief in that case.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[9]\u00a0 <\/strong>The Court refused the invitation.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[10]\u00a0<\/strong> The Court held that the [Washington State Human Rights Commission] regulation WAC 162.22.040(1)(b)(iii) [currently WAC <a href=\"https:\/\/apps.leg.wa.gov\/wac\/default.aspx?cite=162-22-020\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">162-22-020<\/a>] is within the scope of the [Washington Law Against Discrimination], and Barnes has standing to maintain this action.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[11]\u00a0 <\/strong>The Court reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.<\/p>\n<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\">Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co.<\/a><\/em>, 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979) (internal citations omitted) (hyperlink added).<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<hr \/>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h2><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">ISSUE #1:<\/span>\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">Under the WLAD, may a plaintiff have standing to sue their employer for disability discrimination when based on perceived disability?<\/span><\/h2>\n<figure id=\"attachment_303\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-303\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-303 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/RULE.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Rule(s) of the issue\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-303\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-RULE(S)-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><strong>[1-1]\u00a0 UNFAIR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS: <\/strong>RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=49.60.180\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">49.60.180<\/a> declares, in part, that it is an unfair practice for any employer &#8220;to discharge or bar any person from employment because of &#8230; the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap.&#8221; <em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\">Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co.<\/a><\/em>, 22 Wn.App. 576, 578 (Div. I 1979).<strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>[1-2]\u00a0 WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: <\/strong>&#8220;The <a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wshrc-digest\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Washington State Human Rights Commission<\/a> (The Commission) \u2026 has adopted regulation WAC 162-22-040 [(currently WAC <a href=\"https:\/\/apps.leg.wa.gov\/wac\/default.aspx?cite=162-22-020\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">162-22-020<\/a>)] as follows:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">(1) For the purpose of determining whether an unfair practice under RCW 49.60.180-.190, or -.200 has occurred:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">(a) A condition is a &#8216;sensory, mental or physical handicap&#8217; if it is an abnormality and is a reason why the person having the condition did not get or keep the job in question, or was denied equal pay for equal work, or was discriminated against in other terms and conditions of employment, or was denied equal treatment in other areas covered by the statutes. In other words, for enforcement purposes a person will be considered to be Handicapped by a sensory, mental or physical condition if he or she is Discriminated against because of the condition and the condition is abnormal. (emphasis in original.)<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">(b) &#8216;The presence of a sensory, mental, or physical handicap&#8217; includes, but is not limited to, circumstances where a sensory, mental, or physical condition:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 120px;\">(i) is medically recognizable or diagnosable;<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 120px;\">(ii) exists as a record of history; or<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 120px;\">(iii) is perceived to exist, whether or not it exists in fact.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">(2) An example of subsection (1)(b)(ii) is a record showing that the worker had a heart attack five years ago. An example of subsection (1)(b)(iii) is a rejection of a person for employment because he had a florid face and the employer thought that he had high blood pressure.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><em>Id.<\/em> at 579 (hyperlinks added).<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The Commission &#8230; had been granted broad discretion and responsibility for administration of the Act. We must rely upon and give weight to the Commission&#8217;s interpretations of the statute reflected in its regulations.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 581.<\/p>\n<p><strong>[1-3]<\/strong>\u00a0 <strong>JUDICIAL REVIEW OF REGULATIONS:<\/strong> &#8220;There is a presumption that the regulation is valid, and the burden of challenging it is upon the party attacking it.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 580 (<em>referencing Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Department of Ecology<\/em>, 86 Wash.2d 310, 314, 545 P.2d 5 (1976)).<\/p>\n<p>The Court&#8217;s &#8220;review in such situations generally is limited to determining whether the regulation is reasonably consistent with the statute it purports to implement.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> (<em>citing Weyerhaeuser Co.<\/em>, 86 Wn.2d at 314).<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_308\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-308\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-308 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/ANALYSIS.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Analysis of the issue\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-308\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-ANALYSIS-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><strong>[1-4]\u00a0 LEGISLATIVE INTENT: <\/strong>The Court initially considered legislative intent to resolve the issue presented and reasoned, &#8220;It is the intent of the legislature to prohibit discrimination in employment against a person with a sensory handicap.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 582.<\/p>\n<p>But &#8220;it would be an anomalous situation if discrimination in employment would be prohibited against those who possess the handicap but would not include within the class a person &#8216;perceived&#8217; by the employer to have the handicap.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>[1-5]\u00a0 ESSENCE OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION: <\/strong>The Court then defined the essence of unlawful employment discrimination as &#8220;the application of unreasonable generalizations about people to the hiring, promotion and discharge of workers.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>It considered the history of disability as a protected class, finding, &#8220;race, religious creed and sex are among the prohibited criteria for judging workers&#8217; qualifications because of the prejudgments often made on the basis of these characteristics.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Court explained that proscriptions of discrimination against handicapped persons were added to WLAD in 1973 on account of &#8220;similar prejudgments often made about persons afflicted with sensory, mental or physical handicaps, such as epilepsy.&#8221;<em> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>[1-6]\u00a0 LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE: <\/strong>The Court also evaluated legislative purpose by first declaring that a person &#8220;who is perceived to be afflicted with epilepsy may be discriminated against because of his or her perceived handicap even though that perception turns out to be false in either case.&#8221; <em>Id<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Court reasoned that &#8220;it would defeat legislative purpose to limit the handicap provisions of the law against discrimination to those who are actually afflicted with a handicap, such as epilepsy, and exclude from its provision those perceived as having such condition.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Court went on to declare that &#8220;prejudice in the sense of a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known is the fountainhead of discrimination engulfing medical disabilities which prove on examination to be unrelated to job performance or to be nonexistent.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> It determined that the intent of the law is to &#8220;protect workers against such prejudgment based upon insufficient information.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The Court then found that &#8220;the law&#8217;s application, therefore, should not be limited to those who actually have handicaps, excluding those who are discriminated against in the same way because they are only thought to have handicaps.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>[1-7]\u00a0 PROTECTED CLASS: <\/strong>Next, the Court essentially provided a broad definition of disability as a protected class: &#8220;The class protected by the statute is those persons whom the employer discharges or intends to discharge because he believes the person is afflicted with a &#8216;mental, sensory, or physical handicap.'&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 583 (emphasis added). This definition apparently includes both actual and perceived mental, sensory, or physical handicaps.<\/p>\n<p><strong>[1-8]\u00a0 APPLICATION OF POLICY: <\/strong>The Court applied public policy to the instant case and found that WLAD&#8217;s policy to &#8220;eliminate and prevent discrimination in employment requires protecting from discriminatory practices both those perceived to be handicapped as well as those who are handicapped.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>[1-9]\u00a0 EMPLOYER&#8217;S INTERESTS: <\/strong>Before reaching its holding, the Court also considered the employer&#8217;s interests reasoning that the employer was fully protected, because [WLAD] provides &#8220;that the prohibition against discrimination because of such handicaps shall not apply if the particular disability prevents the proper performance of the particular worker involved.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> (<em>citing<\/em> RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=49.60.180\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">49.60.180<\/a>(1)).<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_310\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-310\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-310 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/CONCLUSION.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Conclusion of the issue\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-310\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-CONCLUSION-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><strong>[1-10]\u00a0 BARNES HAS STANDING BASED ON PERCEIVED DISABILITY (REVERSED &amp; REMANDED): <\/strong>The Court held that Barnes had standing to maintain his action of disability discrimination under WLAD based on perceived disability; and it reversed and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.<strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">ISSUE #2:<\/span><\/span>\u00a0 <\/span><\/strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">Is WAC 162-22-040(1)(b)(iii) valid?<\/span><\/h2>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_303\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-303\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-303 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/RULE.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Rules of the Issue\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-303\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-RULES-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><strong>[2-1]\u00a0 PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY: <\/strong>There is a presumption that the regulation is valid, and the burden of challenging it is upon the party attacking it. <em>Id.<\/em> at 580 (internal citation omitted). The Court&#8217;s review in such situation generally is limited to determining whether the regulation is reasonably consistent with the statute it purports to implement. <em>Id.<\/em> (internal citation omitted).<\/p>\n<p>The Washington State Human Rights Commission has been granted broad discretion and responsibility for administration of the WLAD. <em>Id.<\/em> at 581. The Court must rely upon and give weight to the Commission&#8217;s interpretations of the statute reflected in its regulations. <em>Id.<\/em> (internal citation omitted).<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_308\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-308\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-308 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/ANALYSIS.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Analysis of the issue\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-308\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-ANALYSIS-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><strong>[2-2]\u00a0 <em>SEE<\/em> ANALYSIS UNDER ISSUE #1, ABOVE.<\/strong><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_310\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-310\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-310 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/CONCLUSION.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Conclusion of the issue\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-310\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-CONCLUSION-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><strong>[2-3]\u00a0 REGULATION IS WITHIN SCOPE OF WLAD (REVERSED &amp; REMANDED): <\/strong>The Court held that the Washington State Human Rights Commission regulation WAC 162.22.040(1)(b)(iii) was within the scope of the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and it reversed and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.<strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<hr \/>\n<hr \/>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h2><span style=\"color: #333399;\"><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">NOTABLES &amp; IMPLICATIONS<\/span>:<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><em><strong>PUBLIC POLICY<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>(1)<\/strong> &#8220;Public policy, expressed by the [Washington Law Against Discrimination] to eliminate and prevent discrimination in employment requires protecting from discriminatory practices both those perceived to be handicapped as well as those who are handicapped.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 583.<\/p>\n<p><em><strong>WASHINGTON STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>(2)<\/strong> &#8220;The <a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wshrc-digest\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Washington State Human Rights Commission<\/a> (referred to as the Board in the Act) is the agency established by the Washington State Law Against Discrimination (the Act) &#8216;with powers with respect to elimination and prevention of discrimination in employment \u2026 because of \u2026 the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap; and the (commission) established hereunder is hereby given general jurisdiction and power for such purposes.&#8217; RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=49.60.010\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">49.60.010<\/a>.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 583, n. 2 (hyperlinks added).<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The regulations have been adopted by the Commission to implement its powers to administer the Act pursuant to RCW <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=49.60.120\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">49.60.120<\/a>: &#8216;The (commission) shall have the functions, power, and duties: &#8230; (3) To adopt, promulgate, amend, and rescind suitable rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this chapter, and the policies and practices of the (commission) in connection therewith.'&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> (hyperlink added).<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h5>LEARN MORE<\/h5>\n<p>If you would like to learn more, consider contacting an <a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/attorney-gregory-williams\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">experienced employment discrimination attorney<\/a> to discuss your case.\u00a0This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Washington Employment Law Digest or the <a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/attorney-gregory-williams\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">author of this article<\/a>. By reading this article, you agree to our <a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/disclaimer\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Disclaimer \/ Terms-of-Use \/ Privacy Policy<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This is a case summary of Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979). Primary subjects include, but are not limited to the following: \u00bb\u00a0 PROTECTED CLASSES (PERCEIVED DISABILITY) \u00bb\u00a0 TERMINATION BASED UPON PERCEIVED (NONEXISTENT) DISABILITY IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979)&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[70,44,59,84,53,99,54,82,1,43,60,58],"tags":[98],"class_list":["post-352","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-disability","category-division-1","category-laws","category-legislative-intent","category-verdict","category-perceived-disability","category-plaintiff-victory","category-statutory-construction","category-uncategorized","category-washington-courts","category-washington-law-against-discrimination","category-wrongful-termination-generally","tag-washington-state-human-rights-commission"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979) - Washington Employment Law Digest<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A case summary of Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas. The primary subject is termination based upon perceived disability.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979) - Washington Employment Law Digest\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A case summary of Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas. The primary subject is termination based upon perceived disability.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Washington Employment Law Digest\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-07-08T20:16:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-10-20T19:33:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-2.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"375\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"250\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@gawlaw\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f1204669dd452933916ac13a7b5f3496\"},\"headline\":\"Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979)\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-07-08T20:16:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-10-20T19:33:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1922,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-2-300x200.png\",\"keywords\":[\"Washington State Human Rights Commission\"],\"articleSection\":{\"0\":\"Disability\",\"1\":\"Division 1\",\"2\":\"Laws\",\"3\":\"Legislative Intent\",\"4\":\"Outcome\",\"5\":\"Perceived Disability\",\"6\":\"Plaintiff Victory\",\"7\":\"Statutory Construction\",\"9\":\"Washington Courts\",\"10\":\"Washington Law Against Discrimination\",\"11\":\"Wrongful Termination (Generally)\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\\\/\",\"name\":\"Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979) - Washington Employment Law Digest\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-2-300x200.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-07-08T20:16:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-10-20T19:33:54+00:00\",\"description\":\"A case summary of Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas. The primary subject is termination based upon perceived disability.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-2.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-2.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1\",\"width\":375,\"height\":250},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/\",\"name\":\"Washington Employment Law Digest\",\"description\":\"WA State Employment Law Articles\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Washington Employment Law Digest\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-1.png\",\"width\":375,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Washington Employment Law Digest\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f1204669dd452933916ac13a7b5f3496\",\"name\":\"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e0a3750a0ed80b0dfb7e8139a0c21ac091e65e62919b8b8478d9a511ad3812c6?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e0a3750a0ed80b0dfb7e8139a0c21ac091e65e62919b8b8478d9a511ad3812c6?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e0a3750a0ed80b0dfb7e8139a0c21ac091e65e62919b8b8478d9a511ad3812c6?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.\"},\"description\":\"A forceful, commanding, and bold trial attorney. Admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Federal Claims; U.S. District Court Western District of WA; and all Washington State Courts. Member of the Federal Bar Association; Tacoma-Pierce County Bar Association; WA Association for Justice; WA Defender Association; WA State Bar Association. Conflict Panel Attorney (Pierce County Department of Assigned Counsel).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/gawlaw\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/channel\\\/UCqpgdl3uXhQ3Sl9QdKC_UuQ\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979) - Washington Employment Law Digest","description":"A case summary of Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas. The primary subject is termination based upon perceived disability.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979) - Washington Employment Law Digest","og_description":"A case summary of Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas. The primary subject is termination based upon perceived disability.","og_url":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/","og_site_name":"Washington Employment Law Digest","article_published_time":"2021-07-08T20:16:29+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-10-20T19:33:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":375,"height":250,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-2.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@gawlaw","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/"},"author":{"name":"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#\/schema\/person\/f1204669dd452933916ac13a7b5f3496"},"headline":"Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979)","datePublished":"2021-07-08T20:16:29+00:00","dateModified":"2024-10-20T19:33:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/"},"wordCount":1922,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-2-300x200.png","keywords":["Washington State Human Rights Commission"],"articleSection":{"0":"Disability","1":"Division 1","2":"Laws","3":"Legislative Intent","4":"Outcome","5":"Perceived Disability","6":"Plaintiff Victory","7":"Statutory Construction","9":"Washington Courts","10":"Washington Law Against Discrimination","11":"Wrongful Termination (Generally)"},"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/","url":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/","name":"Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979) - Washington Employment Law Digest","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-2-300x200.png","datePublished":"2021-07-08T20:16:29+00:00","dateModified":"2024-10-20T19:33:54+00:00","description":"A case summary of Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas. The primary subject is termination based upon perceived disability.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-2.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-2.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1","width":375,"height":250},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/barnes-v-washington-natural-gas-co\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wn.App. 576 (Div. I 1979)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#website","url":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/","name":"Washington Employment Law Digest","description":"WA State Employment Law Articles","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#organization","name":"Washington Employment Law Digest","url":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.png","width":375,"height":250,"caption":"Washington Employment Law Digest"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#\/schema\/person\/f1204669dd452933916ac13a7b5f3496","name":"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e0a3750a0ed80b0dfb7e8139a0c21ac091e65e62919b8b8478d9a511ad3812c6?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e0a3750a0ed80b0dfb7e8139a0c21ac091e65e62919b8b8478d9a511ad3812c6?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e0a3750a0ed80b0dfb7e8139a0c21ac091e65e62919b8b8478d9a511ad3812c6?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Gregory A. Williams, Esq."},"description":"A forceful, commanding, and bold trial attorney. Admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Federal Claims; U.S. District Court Western District of WA; and all Washington State Courts. Member of the Federal Bar Association; Tacoma-Pierce County Bar Association; WA Association for Justice; WA Defender Association; WA State Bar Association. Conflict Panel Attorney (Pierce County Department of Assigned Counsel).","sameAs":["https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com","https:\/\/x.com\/gawlaw","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCqpgdl3uXhQ3Sl9QdKC_UuQ"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/352","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=352"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/352\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":753,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/352\/revisions\/753"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}