{"id":371,"date":"2021-07-09T16:36:03","date_gmt":"2021-07-09T23:36:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/?p=371"},"modified":"2024-10-20T12:35:19","modified_gmt":"2024-10-20T19:35:19","slug":"loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/","title":{"rendered":"Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This is a case summary of <em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\">Loeffelholz v. University of Washington<\/a><\/em>, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012). Subjects include, but are not limited to the following:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em><strong>\u00bb\u00a0 <\/strong>HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em><strong>\u00bb\u00a0<\/strong> TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em><strong>\u00bb\u00a0<\/strong> ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OUTSIDE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><em><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>IMPORTANT:<\/strong> <\/span><\/span><span style=\"color: #800000;\">This article is for informational purposes only and<\/span><span style=\"color: #800000; 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=\"color: #800000; font-size: 1rem;\"> before proceeding.<\/span><\/em><\/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_132\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-132\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-132 size-medium\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.png?resize=300%2C200&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.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-1.png?w=375&amp;ssl=1 375w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-132\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012)<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h5 style=\"text-align: left;\">case summarY &#8211; 7 PRIMARY Facts:<\/h5>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[1]<\/strong>\u00a0 In 2006, the legislature amended the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter <a href=\"https:\/\/app.leg.wa.gov\/RCW\/default.aspx?cite=49.60\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">49.60<\/a> RCW, to include sexual orientation as a protected class.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[2]<\/strong>\u00a0 After the Amendment, [the Plaintiff] Debra Loeffelholz sued the University of Washington and her superior, James Lukehart (collectively &#8216;University&#8217;), for discrimination based on sexual orientation.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[3]<\/strong>\u00a0 [Loeffelholz] alleges the sexual-orientation-based discrimination created a hostile work environment based on a series of preamendment acts and one potentially postamendment act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[4]<\/strong>\u00a0 The final allegedly discriminatory act&#8211;and the only act to potentially occur postamendment&#8211;occurred during Lukehart&#8217;s last group meeting before deploying to Iraq. During this meeting, he told the group that he was &#8216;going to come back a very angry man&#8217; from Iraq.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[5]<\/strong>\u00a0 [The Court held] that the WLAD amendment is not retroactive and that the preamendment conduct is not actionable as it was not unlawful when it occurred.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[6]<\/strong>\u00a0 The postamendment, allegedly discriminatory comment is arguably similar enough to the preamendment conduct to survive summary judgment.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>[7]<\/strong>\u00a0 [The Court] affirms the Court of Appeals only in reversing summary judgment for the University and clarify that the Court of Appeals erred in allowing recovery for preamendment conduct.<\/p>\n<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\">Loeffelholz v. University of Washington<\/a><\/em>, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012) (hyperlink added).<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<hr \/>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h2><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">ISSUE #1:\u00a0 <\/span><\/strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">Does the WLAD amendment apply retroactively and, if not, is preamendment discriminatory conduct actionable?<\/span><\/h2>\n<figure id=\"attachment_147\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-147\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-147 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/RULE-1.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Rule(s)\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/RULE-1.png?w=150&amp;ssl=1 150w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/RULE-1.png?resize=100%2C100&amp;ssl=1 100w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-147\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-RULE(S)-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><strong>[1-1]\u00a0 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION (PRESUMPTION OF PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION): <\/strong>The Court &#8220;presumes that a statute applies prospectively, unless (1) the legislature intends otherwise, or (2) unless the amendment is remedial in nature.&#8221; <em><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\">Loeffelholz v. University of Washington<\/a><\/em>, 175 Wn.2d 264, 271 (Wash. 2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).<\/p>\n<p>The Court may determine if &#8220;the legislature intends otherwise&#8221; by looking to legislative history. <em>Id.<\/em> (internal citations omitted). Moreover, &#8220;a statute is not remedial when it creates a new right of action.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> (internal citations omitted).<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_148\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-148\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-148 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/ANALYSIS-1.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Analysis\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/ANALYSIS-1.png?w=150&amp;ssl=1 150w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/ANALYSIS-1.png?resize=100%2C100&amp;ssl=1 100w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-148\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-ANALYSIS-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><strong>[1-2]\u00a0 PLAIN LANGUAGE: <\/strong>The Court found that the plain language of the WLAD amendment at issue did not explicitly state that it applied retroactively; it therefore concluded that the plain language supported prospective application. <em>Id.<\/em> at 72 (internal citations omitted).<\/p>\n<p><strong>[1-3]\u00a0 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: <\/strong>The Court found that the final bill report to the WLAD amendment supported prospective application. It stated that &#8220;the amendment expanded the WLAD to prohibit discrimination based on a person&#8217;s sexual orientation.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> (internal citations omitted). The &#8220;language implies that before the amendment, WLAD did not protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>[1-4]\u00a0 THE MORGAN TWO-PART INQUIRY INAPPLICABLE: <\/strong>The Court found the <em>Morgan<\/em> Two-Part Inquiry inapplicable to this case.<\/p>\n<p>In <em>Antonius v. King County<\/em>, 153 Wn.2d 256, 264, 103 P.3d 729 (2004), the court approved the two-part inquiry (hereinafter &#8220;Inquiry&#8221;) introduced in <em>Nat&#8217;l R.R. Passenger Corp v. Morgan<\/em>, 536 U.S. 101, 115, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002)), for purposes of deciding if a hostile work environment claim is timely. <em>Loeffelholz<\/em>, 175 Wn.2d at 273 (internal citations omitted).<\/p>\n<p>Under the <em>Inquiry<\/em>, the court is to determine (1) &#8220;whether the acts about which an employee complains are part of the same actionable hostile work environment practice, and if so,&#8221; (2) &#8220;whether any act falls within the statutory time period.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> (internal citations omitted).<\/p>\n<p>However, here, the Court distinguished <em>Antonius<\/em> from the instant case, pointing out that &#8220;recovery for actions outside the statute of limitations does not raise the same due process concerns as does recovery for conduct that was not unlawful when committed.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>[1-5]\u00a0 PREAMENDMENT CONDUCT AS BACKGROUND EVIDENCE: <\/strong>The Court found that &#8220;while preamendment conduct is unrecoverable, it is still admissible as background evidence to prove why postamendment conduct is discriminatory.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 273-74 (internal citations omitted).<\/p>\n<p>The court in <em>Graves v. District of Columbia<\/em>, 843 F.Supp.2d 106 (D.D.C.2012), &#8220;recognize[d] that conduct that is non-actionable for purposes of liability may sometimes be used for a particular purpose in support of actionable claims.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 274 (internal citations omitted) (alteration in original.<\/p>\n<p>As an example, the Court explained that &#8220;earlier conduct may be relevant to prove the intent behind post-effective-date conduct.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> (internal citations omitted).<\/p>\n<p><strong>[1-6]\u00a0 TOTALITY-OF-THE-CIRCUMSTANCES ANALYSIS: <\/strong>Here, the Court examined the &#8220;totality of the circumstances&#8221; and found that Ms. Loeffelholz could use &#8220;the preamendment conduct to explain why the &#8216;angry man&#8217; comment constituted sexual orientation based harassment.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>[1-7]\u00a0 LEGISLATURE&#8217;S MANDATE THAT WLAD PROVISIONS BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY: <\/strong>The Court further concluded that their finding was &#8220;supported by the legislature&#8217;s mandate that WLAD provisions be construed liberally \u2026 to prevent discrimination that threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of the State&#8217;s inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> (internal citations omitted).<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_149\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-149\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-149 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/CONCLUSION-1.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Conclusion\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/CONCLUSION-1.png?w=150&amp;ssl=1 150w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/CONCLUSION-1.png?resize=100%2C100&amp;ssl=1 100w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-149\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-CONCLUSION-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><strong>[1-8]\u00a0 WLAD AMENDMENT APPLIES PROSPECTIVELY ONLY BUT HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIM MAKES PREAMENDMENT CONDUCT ADMISSIBLE: <\/strong>The Court held that based on the plain language and legislative history, the Washington Law Against Discrimination amendment applies prospectively only; it is not retroactive.<\/p>\n<p>However, &#8220;because of the unique nature of a hostile work environment claim, the unrecoverable preamendment conduct is admissible as background evidence to give context to any postamendment discriminatory conduct.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 278.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">ISSUE #2:\u00a0 <\/span><\/strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">Is a single comment made postamendment a discriminatory act?<\/span><\/h2>\n<figure id=\"attachment_147\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-147\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-147 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/RULE-1.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Rule(s)\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/RULE-1.png?w=150&amp;ssl=1 150w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/RULE-1.png?resize=100%2C100&amp;ssl=1 100w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-147\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-RULE(S)-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><strong>[2-1]\u00a0 HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT: <\/strong>To establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim, the plaintiff must allege facts proving that &#8220;(1) the harassment was unwelcome, (2) the harassment was because [plaintiff was a member of a protected class], (3) the harassment affected the terms and conditions of employment, and (4) the harassment is imputable to the employer.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 275 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original).<\/p>\n<p><strong>[2-2]\u00a0 TERMS &amp; CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT: <\/strong>The third element is met &#8220;if the harassment is sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment, to be determined with regard to the <em>totality of the circumstances<\/em>.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_148\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-148\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-148 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/ANALYSIS-1.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Analysis\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/ANALYSIS-1.png?w=150&amp;ssl=1 150w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/ANALYSIS-1.png?resize=100%2C100&amp;ssl=1 100w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-148\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-ANALYSIS-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><strong>[2-3]\u00a0 TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES: <\/strong>The Court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the preamendment conduct, and concluded that &#8220;the &#8216;angry man&#8217; comment establishes a prima facie hostile work environment claim.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 275-76.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The standard for linking discriminatory acts together in the hostile work environment context is not high.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> &#8220;The acts must have some relationship to each other to constitute part of the same hostile work environment claim.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> (internal citations omitted).<\/p>\n<p>In this case, Mr. Lukehart made the &#8220;angry man&#8221; comment to a group, but &#8220;he conceivably intended it to have special meaning for Ms. Loeffelholz.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 276. Ms. Loeffelholz &#8220;knew that Lukehart disliked lesbians and that he had anger management problems as illustrated by his previous comments that he had a volatile temper and kept a gun.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Court concluded that &#8220;taken in the context of such comments, a reasonable juror could infer from these events that the &#8220;angry man&#8221; comment was a natural extension of the conduct that made up the preamendment oppressive work environment.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 276-77.<\/p>\n<p><strong>[2-4]\u00a0 A SINGLE COMMENT MAY BE ENOUGH: <\/strong>The Court found that &#8220;the preamendment conduct establishes that the &#8216;angry man&#8217; comment could be severe enough, on its own, to alter the conditions of employment and establish a hostile work environment.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 277.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_149\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-149\" style=\"width: 150px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-149 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/CONCLUSION-1.png?resize=150%2C150&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Conclusion\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/CONCLUSION-1.png?w=150&amp;ssl=1 150w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/CONCLUSION-1.png?resize=100%2C100&amp;ssl=1 100w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-149\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><center><b>-CONCLUSION-<\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><strong>[2-5]\u00a0 A SINGLE COMMENT MADE POSTAMENDMENT CAN ESTABLISH A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT:<\/strong> The Court found that preamendment conduct establishes that one comment&#8211;the &#8220;angry man&#8221; comment in this case&#8211;&#8220;could be severe enough, on its own, to alter the conditions of employment and establish a hostile work environment.&#8221; Id. at 278.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, assuming the &#8220;&#8216;angry man&#8217; comment was made postamendment, a genuine issue of material fact exists that prevents summary judgment.&#8221;<em> Id.\u00a0<\/em>Accordingly, the Court affirmed &#8220;only the Court of Appeals reversal of summary judgment, and reversed its reasoning, which allowed recovery for preamendment conduct.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em><\/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><strong>HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>(1)<\/strong> &#8220;The standard for linking discriminatory acts together in the hostile work environment context is not high[ ]; [t]he acts must have some relationship to each other to constitute part of the same hostile work environment claim.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 276 (internal citations omitted).<\/p>\n<p><strong>(2)<\/strong> While preamendment conduct is unrecoverable, it is still admissible as background evidence to prove why postamendment conduct is discriminatory.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 273-74 (internal citations omitted).<\/p>\n<p>Thus, it appears that comments occurring outside of the statute of limitations in other hostile work environment cases might be analogized to preamendment conduct in this case.<\/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 Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012). Subjects include, but are not limited to the following: \u00bb\u00a0 HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT \u00bb\u00a0 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT \u00bb\u00a0 ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OUTSIDE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012)&#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":[9,59,84,73,82,47,12,1,43,60,90],"tags":[102],"class_list":["post-371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-hostile-work-environment","category-laws","category-legislative-intent","category-sexual-orientation","category-statutory-construction","category-supreme-court","category-terms-and-conditions-of-employment","category-uncategorized","category-washington-courts","category-washington-law-against-discrimination","category-wlad-theories","tag-statute-of-limitations"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012) - Washington Employment Law Digest<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Summary of Loeffelholz v. University of Washington. Subjects include hostile work environment and admissible evidence outside statute of limitations.\" \/>\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\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012) - Washington Employment Law Digest\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Summary of Loeffelholz v. University of Washington. Subjects include hostile work environment and admissible evidence outside statute of limitations.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Washington Employment Law Digest\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-07-09T23:36:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-10-20T19:35:19+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-1.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=\"9 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\\\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f1204669dd452933916ac13a7b5f3496\"},\"headline\":\"Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012)\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-07-09T23:36:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-10-20T19:35:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1604,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-1-300x200.png\",\"keywords\":[\"Statute of Limitations\"],\"articleSection\":{\"0\":\"Hostile Work Environment\",\"1\":\"Laws\",\"2\":\"Legislative Intent\",\"3\":\"Sexual Orientation\",\"4\":\"Statutory Construction\",\"5\":\"Supreme Court\",\"6\":\"Terms and Conditions of Employment\",\"8\":\"Washington Courts\",\"9\":\"Washington Law Against Discrimination\",\"10\":\"WLAD Theories\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\\\/\",\"name\":\"Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012) - Washington Employment Law Digest\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-1-300x200.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-07-09T23:36:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-10-20T19:35:19+00:00\",\"description\":\"Summary of Loeffelholz v. University of Washington. Subjects include hostile work environment and admissible evidence outside statute of limitations.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-1.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/cropped-WELD-1.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1\",\"width\":375,\"height\":250},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/gwilliamslaw.com\\\/wa-employment-law-digest\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012)\"}]},{\"@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":"Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012) - Washington Employment Law Digest","description":"Summary of Loeffelholz v. University of Washington. Subjects include hostile work environment and admissible evidence outside statute of limitations.","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\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012) - Washington Employment Law Digest","og_description":"Summary of Loeffelholz v. University of Washington. Subjects include hostile work environment and admissible evidence outside statute of limitations.","og_url":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/","og_site_name":"Washington Employment Law Digest","article_published_time":"2021-07-09T23:36:03+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-10-20T19:35:19+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-1.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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/"},"author":{"name":"Gregory A. Williams, Esq.","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#\/schema\/person\/f1204669dd452933916ac13a7b5f3496"},"headline":"Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012)","datePublished":"2021-07-09T23:36:03+00:00","dateModified":"2024-10-20T19:35:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/"},"wordCount":1604,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1-300x200.png","keywords":["Statute of Limitations"],"articleSection":{"0":"Hostile Work Environment","1":"Laws","2":"Legislative Intent","3":"Sexual Orientation","4":"Statutory Construction","5":"Supreme Court","6":"Terms and Conditions of Employment","8":"Washington Courts","9":"Washington Law Against Discrimination","10":"WLAD Theories"},"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/","url":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/","name":"Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012) - Washington Employment Law Digest","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1-300x200.png","datePublished":"2021-07-09T23:36:03+00:00","dateModified":"2024-10-20T19:35:19+00:00","description":"Summary of Loeffelholz v. University of Washington. Subjects include hostile work environment and admissible evidence outside statute of limitations.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/cropped-WELD-1.png?fit=375%2C250&ssl=1","width":375,"height":250},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/loeffelholz-v-university-of-washington\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, 175 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 2012)"}]},{"@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\/371","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=371"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":756,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371\/revisions\/756"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/wa-employment-law-digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}