WAC 162-08-288 Archives • WSHRC Digest

Parties

by Gregory Williams, Esq. | Under Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) Practice-and-Procedure Regulations, what are the rules concerning parties? Here’s my point of view (NOTE: please read our DISCLAIMER before proceeding).

PARTIES

WAC 162-08-288 is the relevant regulation, and it addresses parties as follows:

(1) Who are parties. The parties to the hearing shall be the commission, through its counsel presenting the case in support of the complaint, a complainant or aggrieved person under RCW 49.60.040(15) who has filed a notice of independent appearance under WAC 162-08-261, the respondent or respondents named in the notice of hearing or an amended notice of hearing, and any other person who moves to intervene and is permitted to do so by order of the administrative law judge.

(2) Adding parties. Any party may move to join an additional party or parties. The motion must be directed to the administrative law judge. If the motion is granted, the administrative law judge shall cause to be issued an amended notice of hearing showing the addition of the party or parties and making such other provisions as are appropriate for an orderly hearing.

(3) Substituting parties. If death, incompetency, transfer of interest, or other occurrence should make the substitution of parties necessary or desirable, the administrative law judge may make the substitution by order. The administrative law judge may act on his or her own motion, or on motion of a party or of the person asking to be substituted for a party.

(4) Intervention. A person claiming an interest in the subject matter of the hearing may move to intervene. The motion must be directed to the administrative law judge. The administrative law judge shall grant or deny the motion as a matter of discretion.

(5) Factors considered. The administrative law judge in ruling on a motion to add a party shall be guided by whether the presence of the party will be helpful in carrying out the purposes of the law against discrimination (compare WAC 162-08-061). In addition, the administrative law judge shall consider whether adding the party will cause unnecessary delay or will divert the hearing from the objectives of the statute and of the commission‘s amended complaint. The administrative law judge need not follow court rules or precedents on the joinder of parties.

(6) Not class actions. Hearings under RCW 49.60.250 are not class actions, in the technical sense of that term in court practice. The commission, presenting the case in support of a complaint, may ask that a respondent be ordered to pay back pay or to afford other relief to all persons injured by an unfair practice, and the administrative law judge may issue such an order to carry out the purposes of the law against discrimination (WAC 162-08-298(6)). If such an order is made, the right to have the payments made will belong to the commission, not to the injured persons (WAC 162-08-305). The legal rights of persons of the class alleged to have been injured are not at issue in the case, and those persons are not bound by the administrative law judge‘s decision unless they accept the benefits of it in full satisfaction of their potential claims. Only the commission and the respondent and other persons named as parties are bound by the order of an administrative law judge.

WAC 162-08-288 (emphasis added) (hyperlinks added).

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced Washington State Employment Discrimination Attorney as soon as possible to discuss your case. Please note: the information contained in this article is not offered as legal advice and will not form an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, P.S., Inc.; Williams Law Group, PS; or the author of this article. Please see our DISCLAIMER.

–gw

Voluntary Dismissal

by Gregory Williams, Esq. | Under Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) Practice-and-Procedure Regulations, what are the rules concerning voluntary dismissal? Here’s my point of view (NOTE: please read our DISCLAIMER before proceeding).

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

WAC 162-08-268 is the relevant regulation, and it addresses voluntary dismissal as follows:

(1) Prior to day of hearing. Except as may be provided for cases alleging unfair practices in real estate transactions, on the day when the hearing of a case commences the commission or any other party on the side supporting the complaint may voluntarily dismiss the party’s case or a claim by serving and filing a written notice of dismissal.

(2) After hearing commenced. Except as may be provided for cases alleging unfair practices in real estate transactions, after a hearing has commenced the commission or any other party on the side supporting the complaint may move for voluntary dismissal of the party’s case or a claim. A motion that is made before the party rests at the conclusion of its opening case shall be granted as a matter of right. A motion made after that time may be granted if good cause is shown, and the grant may be subject to such terms and conditions as the administrative law judge deems proper.

(3) Effect of dismissal. A voluntary dismissal concludes the administrative proceeding as to the dismissed party or claim, but is not an adjudication of the merits of the issues before the administrative law judge (that is, the merits may still be adjudicated in another forum if the party has a right to sue in another forum and timely files such claim with the other forum). A voluntary dismissal of one claim does not extinguish any other claim, and a voluntary dismissal by one party does not dismiss any other party. If the commission takes a voluntary dismissal of the case in support of the complaint the entire case is closed, unless the complainant has appeared independently under WAC 162-08-261 or another person has intervened as a party on the side of the complaint pursuant to WAC 162-08-288(4), in which circumstance the hearing shall proceed with the remaining parties.

WAC 162-08-268 (emphasis added) (hyperlinks added).

LEARN MORE

–gw

Nature of Orders–Enforcement

by Gregory Williams, Esq. | Under Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) Practice-and-Procedure Regulations, what are the rules concerning the nature of orders–enforcement? Here’s my point of view (NOTE: please read our DISCLAIMER before proceeding).

NATURE OF ORDERS–ENFORCEMENT

WAC 162-08-305 is the relevant regulation, and it states that the nature of orders–enforcement is as follows:

(1) Nature of orders. Orders obtained by counsel for the commission are public reparation orders, not adjudications of private rights between respondents and persons aggrieved by the respondents’ unfair practices. When a respondent is ordered to rehire or compensate a person, the person who is the beneficiary of the order has no property right in the job, money, etc., until the person receives it.

(2) Enforcement of order. Except as may be otherwise provided in RCW 49.60.260 and WAC 162-08-288, only the commission, through its counsel, has the authority to enforce an order of an administrative law judge. RCW 49.60.260.

(3) Compromise of order. Except as may be otherwise provided for a complaint alleging an unfair practice in a real estate transaction, the commission, acting in good faith, may compromise an order of an administrative law judge, with or without the consent of the beneficiaries of the order.

WAC 162-08-305 (emphasis added) (hyperlinks added).

LEARN MORE

–gw