Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what are the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”) regulations concerning findings? 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
Understanding WAC 162-08-098: Findings in Human Rights Commission Investigations
When the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) investigates a discrimination complaint, its ultimate goal is to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that an unfair practice has occurred. WAC 162-08-098* outlines how the Commission formalizes those determinations through official findings, which serve as a critical turning point in the complaint process.
Purpose of the Findings Document
Every investigation concludes with a written findings document containing two key elements:
1. Findings of fact — A summary of what the investigation determined actually occurred, based on evidence gathered.
2. Ultimate finding — A formal conclusion stating whether there is:
• Reasonable cause to believe discrimination or another unfair practice has occurred,
• No reasonable cause, or
• A jurisdictional finding, as discussed below.
This document provides transparency and structure, ensuring that both parties understand the Commission’s basis for its conclusions.
Jurisdictional Findings
Sometimes, the facts reveal that the matter is not within the Commission’s jurisdiction—for example, if the complaint involves a federal agency or an employer too small to be covered under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). In such cases, the Commission issues a finding of “no jurisdiction.”
In extraordinary circumstances, even when the Commission technically has jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise it for overriding reasons of law or policy. A rare example is when the complaint is filed against the Commission itself, which would create a conflict of interest. In these situations, the ultimate finding is “jurisdiction declined.”
Scope of a “Reasonable Cause” Finding
When the Commission finds reasonable cause, it must specify:
• The specific unfair practice found (such as discriminatory discharge or housing denial),
• The individual(s) affected, and
• If applicable, the class of persons impacted.
This level of detail ensures that remedial efforts—such as conciliation or negotiated settlements—address the actual harm uncovered during investigation.
Commissioner Involvement and Actions
Findings of no reasonable cause are reported to the Commissioners at a meeting and become official unless the Commissioners vote to set them aside.
Findings of reasonable cause empower Commission staff to pursue conciliation efforts—attempting to resolve the matter voluntarily through dialogue and agreement.
Proposed findings of “no jurisdiction” or “jurisdiction declined” require formal approval by the Commissioners through a vote at a meeting.
The Legal Effect of Findings
Importantly, a finding of reasonable cause or no reasonable cause is not a legal adjudication. It does not determine whether discrimination actually occurred in the legal sense—it merely reflects the Commission’s administrative conclusion based on its investigation.
Implications
WAC 162-08-098 ensures that the Human Rights Commission’s processes remain fair, consistent, and transparent. By clearly defining how and when findings are made—and distinguishing investigative conclusions from legal determinations—the rule protects the integrity of both complainants’ and respondents’ rights. It also reinforces the Commission’s role as a neutral fact-finder, dedicated to resolving discrimination claims efficiently while maintaining public trust in the enforcement of Washington’s anti-discrimination laws.
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: 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