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

Related Parts of This Source

1,754 chars

interpreted more broadly than provisions prohibiting discrimination based on protected

characteristics in order to implement the former’s purpose. Burlington Northern & Santa

Fe Railway v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 61-67, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 165 L. Ed. 2d 345 (2006).

Zhu v. North Central Educational Service District-ESD 171, 189 Wn.2d 607, 609

(2017) controls. The Supreme Court addressed the question: does RCW 49.60.210(1)

create a cause of action for job applicants who claim a prospective employer refused to

hire him or her in retaliation for earlier opposition to discrimination against a different

employer? The court answered “yes.”

Jin Zhu sued the Waterville School District for a hostile work atmosphere based

on his Chinese background. The school district and Zhu resolved the suit and Zhu

resigned from his employment with the district. Three months later, Zhu applied for

employment with the North Central Educational Service District, which maintained a

relationship with the Waterville School District. Officials of the service district knew of

Zhu’s lawsuit against the school district. The education service district hired someone

else, who Zhu claimed lacked his qualifications for the position. Zhu then sued the

service district. He alleged the district declined his application because of his earlier

claim against the school district.

4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38784-4-III
Elgiadi v. Washington State University

The Washington Supreme Court, in Zhu v. North Central Educational Service

District-ESD 171, concluded that the unmistakable language in RCW 49.60.210 extended

to all employers, not just the employee’s former or current employer. The court worried