Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 387844_pub.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 387844_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/387844_pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,465 chars

again emphasized the breadth of RCW 49.60.210(1): “[I]t would make little sense to hold

that the legislature intentionally undercut its own purposes in enacting WLAD by

adopting an antiretaliation provision that allows employers to compile an unofficial ‘do

11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38784-4-III
Elgiadi v. Wash. State Univ.

not hire’ list of individuals who have previously opposed discrimination against

themselves and others.” Id. at 623.

Given Zhu, we readily conclude that the antiretaliation statute prevents a former

employer from refusing to hire a former employee because they opposed unlawful

discrimination. The State does not dispute this. Rather, the State distinguished Zhu,

relying on the fact that Mr. Elgiadi—represented by counsel—had voluntarily waived his

right to be rehired by WSU-Spokane.2 This raises the related question of whether public

policy forbids such a waiver.

b. Public policy does not forbid a plaintiff, who settles a claim of
unlawful discrimination, from waiving a contingent right, such as the
right to be rehired

In Helgeson v. City of Marysville, 75 Wn. App. 174, 881 P.2d 1042 (1994), the

court addressed whether a former employee could waive a statutory right in resolving a

disputed claim. Construing a prior Supreme Court opinion, the Helgeson court held that

the employee could, provided the statutory right was contingent rather than vested.