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

Related Parts of This Source

1,792 chars

about an unofficial blacklist if prospective employers declined to hire those who filed

discrimination claims against previous employers. A reasonable employee might be

dissuaded from opposing discriminatory practices for fear of being placed on this

blacklist.

The Washington Supreme Court’s reasoning, in Zhu v. North Central Educational

Service District-ESD 171, extends to the former employer blacklisting the employee.

The antiretaliation policy in Washington State suffers if an employer, through the process

of settling a lawsuit or any claim, may demand that the employee resign from

employment or not to apply for work again. An employee may value employment with

the employer, despite being the subject of or observing discriminatory practices or

treatment. This employee will shun ridding discrimination from the employment setting

in order to retain employment.

An enlightening opinion is Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 117 S. Ct.

843, 136 L. Ed. 2d 808 (1997) decided under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), the federal analog

to RCW 49.60.210(1). The federal statute bars an employer from “discriminat[ion]

against any of his employees or applicants for employment” who have either availed

themselves of discrimination protections or assisted others in so doing. The case posed

5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

the question of whether the term “employees,” as used in the statute, includes former

employees, such that Charles Robinson might bring suit against his former employer for

postemployment actions allegedly taken in retaliation for his having filed a charge with

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The employer argued that the