skip navigation
MRSC logo

Have a Research Question?

Ask MRSC

Have a Research Question?

Ask MRSC

Employment Discrimination

This page provides an overview of workplace discrimination in Washington State, including how it is prohibited by federal and state laws like the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The page also outlines employers' responsibilities to prevent discrimination, implement anti-discrimination policies, and address employee complaints while protecting against retaliation and violations of rights.

Overview

Discrimination can be a significant – and unlawful – barrier to a qualified person's ability to obtain a job, advance in their present job, or retain the job they have. Both state and federal laws prohibit discrimination in the workplace. Chapter 49.60 RCW, also known as the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), further protects individuals from unfair and discriminatory practices in employment. Several local governments including Seattle and Tacoma have also passed broad anti-discrimination laws.

Discrimination occurs if an employer treats someone adversely and denies them equal treatment or access because of one or more of the following criteria (see definitions in RCW 49.60.040):

  • Race, including hairstyles and other traits associated with race or perceived to be associated with race
  • Creed
  • Color
  • Genetic information including genetic services and family medical history
  • National origin
  • Citizenship or immigration status
  • Sex/gender
  • Sexual orientation
  • Gender identity or expression
  • Marital status
  • Family with children status
  • Age
  • Sensory, mental, or physical disability
  • Use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability
  • Honorably discharged veteran or military status
  • Political beliefs (RCW 29B.40.230)
  • Criminal record, except in specific circumstances (Chapter 49.94 RCW)

Employers must work to prevent discrimination in the workplace, including in these situations: 

  • Hiring and firing
  • Setting salary and benefits
  • Recruitment
  • Job referrals
  • Transfer or promotion
  • Retirement plans and disability leave
  • Drug and medical testing
  • Use of company facilities
  • Tasks and assignments
  • Training and apprenticeships

This page provides an overview of federal and state anti-discrimination laws, suggestions for adopting workplace anti-discrimination policies, and guidelines for handling employee complaints. However, MRSC legal guidance is general, so we recommend consulting with your risk management representatives or agency’s legal counsel regarding specific questions.

If you are seeking information on harassment in the workplace, see our page on Harassment in the Workplace.

Federal and State Law

Federal anti-discrimination law is enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC enforces these laws on organizations employing more than 15 (or sometimes 20) people. The commission investigates discrimination complaints and aims to resolve them. If a settlement isn’t reached, the organization may take legal action.

State discrimination law is enforced by the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC). The WSHRC enforces state laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, as well as in other areas. Below are links to their applicable administrative codes:

Several state statutes prohibit workplace discrimination. First, RCW 49.60.180 establishes the right to be free from discrimination at work, as well as in some other situations. Second, RCW 49.44.250 prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend meetings centered on political or religious views, with exceptions for essential job information or legally mandated training.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

The American with Disabilites Act (ADA) protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination. Under federal ADA and state anti-discrimination provisions, employers must accommodate these employees. The ADA’s definition of a qualified individual with a disability means that the person must:

  • Have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more  major life activities;
  • Have a history or record of such an impairment; or
  • Be regarded as having such an impairment.

The EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the ADA contains more detailed information about how to handle requests for accommodation. The publication states that an employer can request documentation of the disability when the disability is not readily apparent (Question #6).

This publication also characterizes the request for accommodations as “informal,” meaning both the employer and the individual should work to clarify needs and choose an appropriate accommodation (see Question #5).

ADA regulations provide further guidance on this interactive accommodation-seeking process: “To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations” (29 C.F.R Sec. 1630.2(o)(3)).

For more information, see MRSC’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) page.

Drug Testing and Background Tests

Some employees in Washington state may be subject to drug tests for several reasons, including if an employer believes an employee’s performance is hindered because of alcohol or drugs, or if the employee was involved in an incident or accident. However, as of January 1, 2024 employers may not discriminate against job applicants based on their use of off-the-job cannabis (RCW 49.44.240). See, MRSC’s page Hiring Procedures for more information.

The Fair Chance Act, Chapter 49.94 RCW, also makes it discriminatory to advertise jobs in a way that prevent individuals with criminal histories from applying, check applicants’ background checks until they have made an offer of employment conditioned on a background check, or require applicants to disclose criminal history. These requirements do not apply to candidates who would have unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults, or work in financial institutions, law enforcement agencies, or self-regulatory organizations. Employers also cannot adopt a practice that excludes individuals from criminal records for employment positions (except those identified in the law, including those who have unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults or those who work for law enforcement). It also does not apply to non-employee volunteers.

Examples of Testing Program Policies

Adopting an Anti-Discrimination Policy

Local governments should include anti-discrimination policies in their personnel manuals, policies, and procedures, as well as posting and publishing them for their employees.

There are no statutory requirements for cities, counties, or special purpose districts to adopt general anti-discrimination policies that add protections beyond state or federal law. Even when there is not a statutory requirement, adopting local anti-discrimination policies may be a best practice and may also have risk management support.

First-class cities may also expand their discrimination protections using RCW 49.60.330, which says:

“Any county or any city classified as a first-class city under RCW 35.01.010 with over one hundred twenty-five thousand population may enact resolutions or ordinances consistent with this chapter to provide administrative and/or judicial remedies for any form of discrimination proscribed by this chapter.

Seattle’s law includes political ideology and caste as additional protected classes. Tacoma’s law includes familial status and source of income.

Examples of Anti-Discrimination Policies and Resources

Handling Employee Complaints

Internal Complaints

An employer’s personnel policies and procedures should have clear direction about how to report claims of discrimination by others in the workplace. It is important to have several people designated to receive internal complaints, so an employee is not required to report their complaint to a person who has engaged in potential discrimination against that employee. In addition, the process that an employer will follow to investigate, act, and report the outcome to the involved employee(s) should also be clearly understood.

External Complaints

In Washington, individuals who believe they have been subjected to workplace discrimination may file claims with either the WSHRC or the EEOC. Both agencies operate under a “work-sharing agreement,” meaning it is not necessary to file with both agencies. The federal Department of Justice Civil Rights Division enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, disability status, sex, religion, familial status, or loss of other constitutional rights.

The WSHRC allows  individuals experiencing employment discrimination to file a complaint within six months of the violation. Complaints can be filed personally or with legal assistance. The document should be signed under oath or by declaration and must contain relevant information, including the name of the individual responsible for the alleged discriminatory practice. The WSHRC may also issue a complaint if they believe an individual is engaged in unfair practices.

Once the complaint is filed, the WSHRC will investigate to determine if there is probable cause that discrimination occurred. If probable cause is found, the WSHRC will aim to resolve the matter through mediation or administrative hearings. The commission's decision may be appealed to the court. See RCW 49.60.240.

Potential Liability

A public agency’s legal counsel, their public risk insurance pool representatives, and risk management programs are all good resources for preventing and minimizing potential liability claims. Officials, supervisors, and HR leaders should work closely with these resources for best practices to identify, investigate, and resolve potential discrimination. Regular training for leaders and staff is also a component of sound anti-discrimination policies and practices.

Retaliation

Retaliation against employees for filing complaints of discrimination, harassment, or other workplace violations is prohibited under Washington law (RCW 49.60.210). So, even if a complaint is investigated and found to be unsubstantiated, if an employee is retaliated against for making a complaint, then they may have a claim based on retaliation.

An employee alleging a retaliation claim must prove a retaliatory motive was a “substantial factor” in the challenged adverse employment action, but is not required to prove the retaliation was the only factor or a “determining factor” (Allison v. Housing Authority (1991)).

The Washington Supreme Court has held that RCW 49.60.210(1) creates a cause of action for job applicants who claim a prospective employer refused to hire them in retaliation for prior opposition to discrimination against a different employer. See Zhu v. North Central Educational Service District ESD 171 (2017).

In separation agreements or other settlement agreements about employment claims, RCW 49.44.211 bars employers from including nondisclosure or non-disparagement provisions that would prevent employees from disclosing instances of harassment. This prohibition includes any provision prohibiting an employee from “disclosing conduct that employee reasonably believes to be illegal discrimination, illegal harassment, illegal retaliation, a wage and hour violation, sexual assault, or that is recognized as against a clear mandate of public policy.”

Whistleblowers

State law whistleblower protection includes employees of local governments. Whistleblowers play a crucial role in revealing improper governmental actions. RCW 42.41.020 defines “improper governmental action” to include actions that violate federal, state, or local laws, pose a danger to public health or safety, or are a gross waste of public funds.

Local governments are encouraged to provide clear policies on reporting, protecting the confidentiality of whistleblowers, and ensuring whistleblower employees are not subject to retaliation. Additionally, under RCW 42.41.030(2), local governments must adopt policies on reporting whistleblower claims in which the identity of whistleblowers is protected.

For more information, see our page on Whistleblowing.

Court Decisions

Here is a non-exhaustive overview of appellate court decisions on this subject. Check with your agency’s attorneys for legal authority about particular situations in your workplace. 

WLAD provides greater protection for employees than federal law.

Kumar v. Gate Gourmet Inc. (2014) – The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) is interpreted in context and to be consistent with the federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Washington courts look to federal case law interpreting the anti-discrimination statutes. Where the state supreme court “has departed from federal antidiscrimination statute precedent, however, it has almost always ruled that the WLAD provides greater employee protection than its federal counterparts."

Overview of the knowledge requirement.

Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. (1991) –The employer knowledge requirement for a discrimination case is met by establishing that the employee participated in an opposition activity, the employer knew of the opposition activity, and the employee was discharged. Complaints about the conduct of a supervisor that do not allege discrimination have been held to be insufficient to impute knowledge of protected opposition to employer Graves v. Department of Game (1994) (citing Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum (1991)).

Prohibiting discrimination based on age.

Mount Lemmon Fire Department v. Guido (2018) – The U.S. Supreme Court held that all state and local governments, regardless of how small, are “employers” bound by the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which prohibits discrimination by employers against, and harassment of, employees and applicants age 40 or older on the basis of age.

Settlement agreements.

Elgiadi v. Washington State University Spokane (2022) – The court upheld a “no rehire” provision in an agreement to settle a discrimination case does not violate public policy. The provision in that case applied only to one branch campus of the WSU system, and therefore did not amount to a “blacklisting” of the plaintiff. The court noted that public policy encourages the settlement of legal disputes and ruled that the provision did not constitute a void noncompetition covenant under RCW 49.62.020 because the plaintiff was not an employee or independent contractor at the time he signed the agreement.

Reasonable accommodations.

Suarez v. State (2024) – The Washington Supreme Court considered a case where an employee’s requests for time off for religious reasons were allegedly not accommodated by their employer in a workplace with 24/7 shifts and collective bargaining agreement terms about shift assignments. The court upheld the trial court’s summary judgment of dismissal because, as a matter of law, it was an “undue hardship” for the employer when the requested accommodation required a violation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

Crabtree v. Jefferson County Public Hospital District No. 2 (2021) – The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of a discrimination claim based on an employee’s pregnancy. The plaintiff claimed the  reasons given for her dismissal were a pretext and that discrimination was a motivating factor for the employer’s termination. Because direct evidence of discriminatory intent is rare, an employee may rely on circumstantial, indirect and inferential evidence to establish discriminatory action. In this case, there was sufficient disputed evidence to submit the case to the trier of fact (usually a jury).

Retaliation.

Ellis v. City of Seattle (2000) – The State Supreme Court held that an RCW Chapter 49.60 claim of retaliation requires the employee to show they have an objectively reasonable belief the employer’s request of the employee would violate the law and because of this an adverse employment action was taking against them. The employee is not required to prove actual discrimination.

Adverse employment action

Burlington Northern  & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006) – The U.S. Supreme Court held that a “materially adverse” employment action is one that causes “significant” harm and would “dissuad[e] a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”
 

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024) – Expands the holding from the 2006 case. An employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant. In other words, a lateral transfer could be sufficient to show discrimination, but previously a lateral transfer may not have been considered “materially adverse.”

Recommended Resources

For additional resources on addressing workplace discrimination and harassment, local governments can refer to training and consultation services such as those offered by:


Last Modified: January 06, 2026