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.
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
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.
RELATED ARTICLES
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