Washington — Workplace Discrimination

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), codified at RCW Chapter 49.60, prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, 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). Under RCW 49.60.180, it is an unfair practice for an employer to refuse to hire, discharge, or discriminate in compensation or other terms and conditions of employment on these bases, unless a bona fide occupational qualification applies or the disability prevents proper performance of the work.

Source: RCW 49.60.180

The Washington Law Against Discrimination applies to employers who employ eight or more persons. Under RCW 49.60.040(11), "employer" includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, who employs eight or more persons. The statute excludes religious or sectarian organizations not organized for private profit from the definition of employer.

Source: RCW 49.60.040(11)

Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) imposes distinct time limits depending on the enforcement forum. Effective 2023 and confirmed into 2024, the statute and WSHRC guidance clarify a longer administrative deadline for pregnancy discrimination claims.

Administrative (WSHRC) deadlines:

• General claims: A discrimination complaint must generally be filed with the WSHRC within six months of the alleged unfair practice. This requirement is in RCW 49.60.230(2) and applies for most employment discrimination claims under WLAD.
• Pregnancy discrimination: Complaints alleging discrimination due to pregnancy must be filed within twelve (12) months of the alleged practice. This longer period is now established both by statute (see 2023 amendment to RCW 49.60.230) and confirmed in official WSHRC guidance.

Statute of limitations for court actions — three years: A complainant may proceed directly to superior court to bring a WLAD claim without first filing with the WSHRC. The general three-year statute of limitations for actions upon a liability created by statute, as set forth in RCW 4.16.080(2), applies to such claims. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed this in Douchette v. Bethel School District No. 403, 117 Wn.2d 805 (1991). RCW 49.60.030 expressly provides the right to bring suit in court without exhausting administrative remedies.

Does WSHRC filing toll the court deadline? Neither RCW 49.60 nor published Commission regulations state that administrative filing tolls (pauses) the court statute of limitations. Primary authority remains silent: practitioners should assume that the three-year limitation continues to run even while a WSHRC claim is pending. If case law or rulemaking creates a tolling exception, it was not found in current primary sources as of July 2024.

Dual (parallel) filings with EEOC: Washington is a "deferral state" for federal employment discrimination law, so a complaint may be dual-filed with both the WSHRC and the federal EEOC. Dual filing is not required to preserve WLAD rights. No authority indicates that an EEOC filing tolls the WLAD court deadline or alters the state administrative deadlines.

Source: RCW 49.60.230; RCW 49.60.030; RCW 4.16.080; Douchette v. Bethel Sch. Dist.; WSHRC Employment Complaints

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) does not protect all employees from age discrimination. Instead, the statutory protection specifically applies to individuals who are at least 40 years old. Under RCW 49.44.090(1), it is an unfair practice for an employer to "refuse to hire, discharge, or discriminate ... because an individual is forty years of age or older." This mirrors the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which also sets 40 as the floor for age discrimination coverage (but be aware: state and federal claims remain distinct and must be pled separately).

No WLAD protection for those under 40: Employees or job applicants under 40 are not covered by state law for claims of age discrimination, unless the alleged conduct also implicates another protected class or federal law. There is no language in either the WLAD or the parallel Washington statute (RCW 49.44.090) extending age discrimination protection below the 40-year mark.

Exception — age limits for jobs requiring extraordinary effort: Washington allows employers or licensing agencies to request permission to set minimum or maximum age limits for certain jobs that require "extraordinary physical effort, endurance, condition, or training," or where public safety is concerned. But these limits are only lawful if approved by either the Executive Director of the Washington State Human Rights Commission, or the Director of the Department of Labor & Industries, as outlined in RCW 49.44.090(2). The exception is tightly drawn and is not a general license for age-based employment restrictions.

Source: RCW 49.44.090

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) protects employees, applicants, and other "persons" from retaliation for engaging in specific protected conduct. As set out in RCW 49.60.210(1), it is an unfair practice for any employer, labor organization, or person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against an individual because:

• The person has opposed any practices forbidden by the WLAD (the "opposition" clause); or
• The person has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under the WLAD (the "participation" clause).

Opposition and Participation Protections: The statute explicitly covers opposition to practices prohibited by the WLAD and support or participation in enforcement proceedings. Washington courts have held that these protections broadly apply to anyone who engages in these enumerated activities, whether or not they are current employees, so long as the activity has a connection to WLAD rights. The protected activity must be specified by the statute; the court in Milligan v. Thompson confirmed the elements of a retaliation claim under WLAD: (1) engagement in statutorily protected activity, (2) the employer took an adverse employment action, and (3) there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action.

Adverse Action & Causation: An "adverse action" under this framework means more than just termination. Demotions, pay decreases, or any material change in employment that is unfavorable and has a direct connection to the employee’s protected activities may also qualify (see Milligan v. Thompson).

Public Employee Whistleblowers: RCW 49.60.210(2) extends retaliation prohibitions to state agencies, managers, and supervisors who take adverse action against whistleblowers as defined in RCW 42.40.020. Specifically, public employers are barred from retaliating against employees who report misconduct under the state whistleblower law. The statute authorizes reinstatement with or without back pay as available remedies if retaliation is found.

Source: RCW 49.60.210; Milligan v. Thompson, Wash. Ct. App. Div. I, No. 84697-7-I