by Gregory Williams, Esq. | Under Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) Practice-and-Procedure Regulations, what are the rules concerning claims of self incrimination–immunity? Here’s my point of view (NOTE: please read our DISCLAIMER before proceeding).
THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY (RCW)
RCW 49.60.120(3) is the statutory authority enabling the WSHRC to adopt rules concerning claims of self incrimination–immunity. See WAC 162-08-294, WA State Legislature Website (bottom of page body). The statute declares that the WSHRC has “the function[], power[], and dut[y] … [t]o adopt, amend, and rescind suitable rules to carry out the provisions of this chapter, and the policies and practices of the commission in connection therewith.” RCW 49.60.120(3) (hyperlinks added).
CLAIMS OF SELF INCRIMINATION–IMMUNITY
WAC 162-08-294 is the relevant regulation, and it addresses claims of self incrimination–immunity as follows:
(1) How claimed. A natural person who is testifying under oath, may, instead of answering a question, decline to answer the question on the ground that the testimony or evidence required of him or her may tend to incriminate him or her or subject him or her to a penalty or forfeiture.
(2) Procedure before compelling testimony. Before compelling testimony after the privilege against self incrimination has been invoked (and thereby exempting the witness from prosecution) the administrative law judge shall ask examining counsel and also counsel for the commission to state their positions on whether the witness should be ordered to answer. Counsel for the commission may ask that the ruling be deferred for such time as is necessary for counsel for the commission to consult with other public officers before responding. The position of counsel for the commission and other public officers shall be given due weight by the administrative law judge in deciding whether to order the witness to answer.
(3) Inference from silence after immunity acquired. If the witness declines to answer the question after acquiring exemption from prosecution, the administrative law judge may consider the silence as evidence and may draw such inferences from it as are warranted by the facts surrounding the incident.
WAC 162-08-294 (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