WLAD: Definition of Real Property

by Gregory Williams, Esq. | What is the definition of “real property” under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD)? Here’s my point of view (please review our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy Notice before proceeding).

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or marital status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right in the State of Washington. RCW 49.60.030(1) (emphasis added). This right includes, but is not limited to the right to engage in real estate transactions without discrimination, including discrimination against families with children. RCW 49.60.030(1)(c) (emphasis added). Under WLAD, the term “real property” appears in various sections relating to real estate discrimination.

DEFINITION OF REAL PROPERTY

Chapter 49.60.040(22) RCW is the relevant law, and it defines the term “real property” as follows:

(22) “REAL PROPERTY” includes buildings, structures, dwellings, real estate, lands, tenements, leaseholds, interests in real estate cooperatives, condominiums, and hereditaments, corporeal and incorporeal, or any interest therein.

RCW 49.60.040(22) (emphasis added).

L E A R N   M O R E

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced discrimination attorney to discuss your case as soon as possible. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Williams Law Group, Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, P.S., Inc., or the author of this article. Please read our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy notice.

-gw

WLAD: Perceived Sexual Orientation

by Gregory Williams, Esq. | Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), may an employee use perceived sexual orientation as a protected class under a claim of employment discrimination? Here’s my point of view (please review our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy Notice before proceeding).

WA CIVIL RIGHTS

The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or marital status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right in the State of Washington. RCW 49.60.030(1) (emphasis added). This right includes, but is not limited to, the right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination. RCW 49.60.030(1)(a).

PERCEIVED SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Thus, the WLAD prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Davis v. Fred’s Appliance, Inc., 171 Wn.App. 348, 359, 287 P.3d 51 (Div. 3 2012) (citing RCW 49.60.180). However, the issue is whether perceived sexual orientation is actionable as a basis for employment discrimination? Washington case law may help to address this issue.

DAVIS v. FRED’S APPLIANCE

In Davis v. Fred’s Appliance, Inc., 171 Wn.App. 348, 287 P.3d 51 (Div. 3 2012), a supervisor referred to a heterosexual employee as “Big Gay Al.” The employee took offense. Eventually, the supervisor was ordered to apologize, but, during his apology, the situation escalated and the employee engaged in an angry outburst. The employee was subsequently fired, and he sued, in part, for hostile work environment.

As an initial matter, the court in Davis found the following fundamental concepts under WLAD: first, WLAD prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — Davis v. Fred’s Appliance, Inc., 171 Wn.App. 348, 359, 287 P.3d 51 (Div. 3 2012) (citing RCW 49.60.180); second, “sexual orientation” is statutorily defined as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity — Id. (citing RCW 49.60.040(26)); and third, the statute defines “gender expression or identity” as having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth — Id. at 359-60 (citing RCW 49.60.040(26)) (emphasis added).

The court reasoned that the statute makes no mention of perception in its definition of “sexual orientation,” and this suggests that the legislature intended perception to come into play only in gender identity discrimination, but not in discrimination based upon homosexuality or heterosexuality. Id. at 360 (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added). A definition of “gender expression or identity” is embedded in the definition of sexual orientation. Id. at 361 (citing RCW 49.60.040(26)). “Gender expression or identity” explicitly includes perception. Id. (citing RCW 49.60.040(26)) (internal citation omitted). If “being perceived” is read into the definition of “sexual orientation,” then “being perceived” in the definition of “gender expression or identity” would be meaningless. Id.

The court ultimately concluded that “perceived sexual orientation” is not a protected class, and therefore the employee was not a member of a protected class.

CONCLUSION

Overall, I believe that under a WLAD claim of employment discrimination, an employee may not use perceived sexual orientation as a protected class.

L E A R N   M O R E

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment discrimination attorney to discuss your case as soon as possible. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Williams Law Group, Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, P.S., inc., or the author of this article. Please read our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy notice.

-gw

Washington Law Against Discrimination Is Potent

by Gregory Williams, Esq. | The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) is a potent statute that places plaintiffs in the role of a private attorney general. How potent is the statute? Here’s my point of view (please review our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy Notice before proceeding).

THE PURPOSE OF WLAD

The Washington State Supreme Court has held that the purpose of the WLAD is to deter and eradicate discrimination in Washington. Fraternal Order of Eagles, Tenino Aerie No. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wn.2d 224, 246, 59 P.3d 655, (Wash. 2002). This is a policy of the highest order. Id. Accordingly, WLAD requires a liberal construction in order to accomplish the purposes of the law and states that nothing contained in the law shall “be construed to deny the right to any person to institute any action or pursue any civil or criminal remedy based upon an alleged violation of his or her civil rights.” Marquis v. City of Spokane, 130 Wn.2d 97, 108, 922 P.2d 43, (Wash. 1996). The legislative purpose of the WLAD is codified in RCW 49.60.010 which provides as follows:

This chapter shall be known as the “law against discrimination.” It is an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the public welfare, health, and peace of the people of this state, and in fulfillment of the provisions of the Constitution of this state concerning civil rights. The legislature hereby finds and declares that practices of discrimination against any of its inhabitants because of race, creed, color, national origin, families with children, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability are a matter of state concern, that such discrimination threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of its inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state. A state agency is herein created with powers with respect to elimination and prevention of discrimination in employment, in credit and insurance transactions, in places of public resort, accommodation, or amusement, and in real property transactions because of race, creed, color, national origin, families with children, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability; and the commission established hereunder is hereby given general jurisdiction and power for such purposes.

RCW 49.60.010 (emphasis added) (NOTE: the last sentence refers to the Washington State Human Rights Commission).

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION

Further RCW 49.60.020 mandates a liberal construction of WLAD as follows:

The provisions of this chapter shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the purposes thereof. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to repeal any of the provisions of any other law of this state relating to discrimination because of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, other than a law which purports to require or permit doing any act which is an unfair practice under this chapter. Nor shall anything herein contained be construed to deny the right to any person to institute any action or pursue any civil or criminal remedy based upon an alleged violation of his or her civil rights. This chapter shall not be construed to endorse any specific belief, practice, behavior, or orientation. Inclusion of sexual orientation in this chapter shall not be construed to modify or supersede state law relating to marriage.

RCW 49.60.020 (emphasis added).

Moreover, Washington courts have held that a declaration of policy in a legislative act serves as an important guide in determining the intended effect of the operative sections. See Kilian v. Atkinson, 147 Wn.2d 16, 23, 50 P.3d 638, (Wash. 2002) (internal citation omitted). Thus, it is no surprise that the Washington State Supreme Court has held that a statutory mandate of liberal construction requires that “we view with caution any construction that would narrow the coverage of the law.” See Marquis v. City of Spokane, 130 Wn.2d 97, 108, 922 P.2d 43, (Wash. 1996) (citing Shoreline Community College Dist. No. 7 v. Employment Sec. Dep’t, 120 Wash.2d 394, 406, 842 P.2d 938 (1992)) (quotations omitted).

PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Ultimately, a plaintiff bringing a discrimination case in Washington assumes the role of a private attorney general, vindicating a policy of the highest priority. See Marquis v. City of Spokane, 130 Wn.2d 97, 109, 922 P.2d 43, (Wash. 1996).

L E A R N   M O R E

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment discrimination attorney to discuss your case as soon as possible. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Williams Law Group, Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, P.S., inc., or the author of this article. Please read our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy notice.

-gw

 

 

WA State Employees & Discrimination

by Gregory Williams, Esq. | Under Washington law, can an employee of the State of Washington hold the State liable for violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination? Here’s my point of view (please review our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy Notice before proceeding).

WA STATE CONSTITUTION

The answer to this issue is more procedural than substantive. As an initial matter, Article II, section 26, of the Washington State Constitution provides that “[t]he legislature shall direct by law, in what manner, and in what courts, suits may be brought against the state.” Skokomish Indian Tribe v. France, 269 F.2d 555, 561 (9th Cir. 1959) (emphasis added); Wash. Const. art. II, § 26. However, when the Washington Law Against Discrimination was enacted in 1949, it did not specifically waive the State’s sovereign immunity to suit in court. Blair v. Washington State University, 108 Wn.2d 558, 576, 740 P.2d 1379 (Wash. 1987) (internal citation omitted). As of the date of this article, the vehicle for state employees to hold Washington State liable for violations of Washington Law Against Discrimination is found elsewhere (NOTE: State whistleblowers are subject to additional requirements under RCW 42.40 and the Washington State Human Rights Commission – however, this article will not address those requirements).

TORTIOUS CONDUCT

In this case, the relevant law is found under Washington State Civil Procedure and is, in part, as follows:

The state of Washington, whether acting in its governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a private person or corporation.

Chapter 4.92.090 RCW (emphasis added). Moreover, the Washington Supreme Court has held that a discrimination action under Washington Law Against Discrimination is a tort. Blair v. Washington State University, 108 Wn.2d 558, 576, 740 P.2d 1379 (1987). Incidentally, a “tort” is a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability.

PRESENTMENT & FILING PREREQUISITES

Thus, an employee of the state of Washington may hold the State liable for violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination. However–and this is critical–before an employee can both file suit against the State pursuant to Washington Law Against Discrimination and attempt to establish liability, the employee must first conform to the stringent presentment and filing prerequisites under RCW 4.92. See, e.g., Blair v. Washington State University, 108 Wn.2d at 576 (There is no indication of legislative intent to exempt discrimination actions from the requirements of RCW 4.92.110).

L E A R N   M O R E

If you would like to learn more about the stringent presentment and filing requirements under RCW 4.92, the Washington Law Against Discrimination, or whistleblower retaliation, then consider contacting an experienced employment discrimination attorney to discuss your case as soon as possible. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Williams Law Group, Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, P.S., inc., or the author of this article. Please read our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy notice.

-gw

Failure to Mitigate Damages

by Gregory Williams, Esq. | Under Washington state law, what is the “failure to mitigate damages” defense and how is it typically applied in employment discrimination cases? Here’s my point of view (please review our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy Notice before proceeding).

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Typically, in an employment discrimination lawsuit in the State of Washington, a defendant-employer will assert the affirmative defense of “failure to mitigate damages” against the plaintiff-employee; an affirmative defense is a defendant’s assertion of facts and arguments that, if true, will defeat the plaintiff’s claim, even if all allegations in the complaint are true. Blacks Law Dictionary, p. 451, “defense (affirmative defense)” (Rev 8th Ed. 2004); Bernsen v. Big Bend Elec. Co-op., Inc., 68 Wn.App. 427, 433, 842 P.2d 1047 (1993); CR 8(c). The defense is most often asserted when the plaintiff-employee challenges as discriminatory a discrete employment decision, such as a termination or a failure to hire.

BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proving a failure to mitigate damages in an employment discrimination suit is on the defendant (typically, an employer), and the employer must show the following to satisfy its burden:

  1. There were openings in comparable positions available for plaintiff elsewhere after defendant terminated or refused to hire plaintiff;
  2. The plaintiff failed to use reasonable care and diligence in seeking those openings;
  3. The amount by which damages would have been reduced if the plaintiff had used reasonable care and diligence in seeking those openings.

6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 330.83 (6th ed.).

BACK PAY AWARD

Importantly, the plaintiff’s failure to make an ongoing, concerted effort to find comparable employment does not preclude a back pay award. Henningsen v. Worldcom, Inc., 9 P.3d 948, 102 Wn.App. 828 (Wash.App. Div. 1 2000).

EXAMPLE: HENNINGSEN V. WORLDCOM

For example, in Henningsen v. Worldcom, Inc., a plaintiff-employee (Henningsen) brought a sex discrimination lawsuit against her defendant-employer (Worldcom), and the trial court entered (bench trial) judgment in Henningsen’s favor; the award included full back pay. Id. (internal quotations omitted). Worldcom then appealed alleging the trial court erred, because Henningsen failed to mitigate her damages. Id. (internal quotations omitted). Worldcom claimed that there was evidence that she traveled extensively, had a baby, married the babyss father, and then proceeded to assist him in the management of his own business after she left Worldcom. Id. (internal quotations omitted).

The court found that there was evidence that Henningsen failed to make an ongoing, concerted effort to find comparable employment and that the trial court even expressed some concerns about Henningsen’s underemployment. Id. (internal quotations omitted). But the court also found that there was evidence that she worked on a limited basis for her husband’s business and tried to start a home business. Id. (internal quotations omitted). Ultimately, the court concluded that Worldcom presented no evidence that employment comparable to her position at Worldcom was in fact available and, therefore, ruled that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Worldcom did not prove that Henningsen failed to mitigate her back pay damages. Id. (internal quotations omitted).

Thus, in the case of Henningsen v. Woldcom, the issue of mitigation of damages was determined in favor of the employee as a result of the employer‘s failure to satisfy the first element of the test: evidence that there were openings in comparable positions available for plaintiff elsewhere after defendant terminated (or refused to hire) plaintiff.

L E A R N   M O R E

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment discrimination attorney to discuss your case as soon as possible. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Williams Law Group, Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, P.S., inc., or the author of this article. Please read our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy notice.

-gw

Pregnancy Discrimination is Sex Discrimination in WA

by Gregory Williams, Esq. | In the state of Washington, do courts analyze pregnancy discrimination using an accommodation analysis (similar to that in a disability context), or do they analyze pregnancy discrimination as a form of sex discrimination? Here’s my point of view (please review our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy Notice before proceeding).

WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW Chapter 49.60, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment because of a protected class. Protected classes relating to employment discrimination include race or color; national origin; creed; sex or pregnancy; sexual orientation or gender identity; veteran or military status; presence of any sensory, mental, or physical actual disability or perceived disability; use of a service animal; HIV or hepatitis C; marital status; and age.

HEGWINE V. LONGVIEW FIBRE

In Washington, an employer who refuses to hire a job applicant because of her pregnancy is liable for sex discrimination under chapter 49.60 RCW (Washington Law Against Discrimination or WLAD), absent demonstration of a business necessity or proof of a bona fide occupational qualification. Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co., Inc., 162 Wn.2d 340, 344, 172 P.3d 688 (Wash. 2007) (citing RCW 49.60.180(1) and WAC 162-30-020). The court in Hegwine ultimately held, “[U]nder the plain language of the WLAD and its interpretative regulations, pregnancy related employment discrimination claims are matters of sex discrimination. Such claims are not subject to an accommodation analysis similar to that used in the disability context.” Id. at 349.

CONCLUSION

Consequently, I believe that in the state of Washington, courts analyze pregnancy discrimination as a form of sex discrimination.

L E A R N   M O R E

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting a pregnancy discrimination attorney to discuss your case as soon as possible. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Williams Law Group, Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, P.S., Inc., or the author of this article. Please read our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy notice.

-gw

WLAD: Definition of Dog Guide

by Gregory Williams, Esq. | Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), what is the definition of the term “dog guide”? Here’s my point of view (please review our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy Notice before proceeding).

WA LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Under WLAD, it is an unfair practice, with very few exceptions, for an employer to refuse to hire any person, to discharge or bar any person from employment, or to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms and conditions of employment because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability.

DEFINITION OF “DOG GUIDE”

Chapter 49.60.040 RCW is the relevant law, and as of the date of this article it defines the term “Dog Guide” as follows:

“Dog guide” means a dog that is trained for the purpose of guiding blind persons or a dog that is trained for the purpose of assisting hearing impaired persons.

RCW 49.60.040 (emphasis added).

L E A R N   M O R E

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment discrimination attorney to discuss your case as soon as possible. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Williams Law Group, Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, P.S., inc., or the author of this article. Please read our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy notice.

–gw

 

Color Discrimination in Employment

by Gregory Williams, Esq. | Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, what is the definition of color discrimination in employment? Here’s my point of view (please review our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy Notice before proceeding).

WA LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Generally, under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW Chapter 49.60, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate based on protected classes in employment. Protected classes relating to employment discrimination include race or color; national origin; creed; sex or pregnancy; sexual orientation or gender identity; veteran or military status; presence of any sensory, mental, or physical actual disability or perceived disability; use of a service animal; HIV or hepatitis C; marital status; and age.

COLOR & PHYSIOGNOMY

Color discrimination arises when the particular hue of the plaintiff’s skin is the cause of the discrimination, such as in the case where a dark-colored African American individual is discriminated against in favor of a light-colored African American individual. Bryant v. Bell Atlantic Maryland, Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 133 n. 5 (4th Cir. 2002). This principle also applies to federal law outside the scope of both Washington Law Against Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For example, the United States Supreme Court has proclaimed that “a distinctive physiognomy is not essential to qualify for § 1981 protection.” Saint Francis College, et al. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 107 S.Ct. 2022, 2026, 95 L.Ed.2d 582 (1987) (the court finding it not controlling that a black person was suing another black person under § 1981) (emphasis added). Incidentally, the term “physiognomy” is a noun that means a person’s facial features or expression, especially when regarded as indicative of character or ethnic origin. English Oxford Living Dictionaries, (Oxford University Press 2017).

EXAMPLES

In light of the foregoing, an African American employee, for instance, might be able to recover against their employer under theories of both racial and color discrimination. And the claim of color discrimination may be based upon the particular hue of the African American employee’s skin color. Alternatively, a group of dark-skinned Latino employees, for example, might be able to bring a claim of color discrimination against their employer even though their lighter-skinned Latino co-workers are not experiencing such discrimination. Obviously, these are just clarifying examples, and other races/nationalities may be included under a claim of color discrimination based on the circumstances of each case.

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment discrimination attorney to discuss your case as soon as possible. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Williams Law Group, Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, P.S., inc., or the author of this article. Please read our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy notice.

–gw

Purpose of WA Law Against Discrimination

by Gregory Williams, Esq. | What is the purpose of the Washington Law Against Discrimination? Here’s my point of view (please review our disclaimer before proceeding).

The purpose of the Washington Law Against Discrimination as contained under chapter 49.60 RCW is as follows:

This chapter shall be known as the “law against discrimination.” It is an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the public welfare, health, and peace of the people of this state, and in fulfillment of the provisions of the Constitution of this state concerning civil rights. The legislature hereby finds and declares that practices of discrimination against any of its inhabitants because of race, creed, color, national origin, families with children, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability are a matter of state concern, that such discrimination threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of its inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state

RCW 49.60.010 (emphasis added).

L E A R N   M O R E

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment discrimination attorney to discuss your case as soon as possible. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Williams Law Group, Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, P.S., inc., or the author of this article. Please read our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy Notice.

-gw

Labor Union Discrimination In Washington State

by Gregory Williams, Esq. | Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, can employees sue their labor unions for discrimination in Washington State? Here’s my point of view (please review our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy Notice before proceeding).

WA LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

In the State of Washington, it’s an unfair practice for any labor union or labor organization:

(1) To deny membership and full membership rights and privileges to any person because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability.

(2) To expel from membership any person because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability.

(3) To discriminate against any member, employer, employee, or other person to whom a duty of representation is owed because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability.

RCW § 49.60.190.

REMEDIES

Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act amounting to this unfair practice shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.). See RCW §49.60.030(2).

L E A R N   M O R E

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment discrimination attorney to discuss your case as soon as possible. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Williams Law Group, Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, P.S., inc., or the author of this article. Please read our Disclaimer, Terms of Use & Privacy notice.

-gw