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

Related Parts of This Source

1,787 chars

statute did not protect former employees. After Robinson filed the charge with the

EEOC, he left employment and applied to another employer. The prospective employer

contacted Shell Oil Company, who supplied a negative reference for Robinson.

Robinson claimed that Shell gave the negative recommendation because of his having

filed the discrimination complaint.

The Supreme Court, in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., held that the term “employee” in

the federal statute extended to former employees for many reasons. First, the statute

maintained no temporal qualifier. The statute could have expressly excluded the phrase

“former employees” or included the phrase “current employees.” Washington’s statute,

RCW 49.60.210(1), goes further than the federal statute and protects “any person.”

Second, allowing a former employer to discriminate or retaliate against a past employee

would undermine the effectiveness of Title VII by allowing the threat of postemployment

retaliation to deter victims of discrimination from complaining to the EEOC.

Public Policy

Public policy renders a contract term unenforceable when the public policy

outweighs the interest in enforcing the term. LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Group,

6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

LLC, 181 Wn.2d 48, 85, 331 P.3d 1147 (2014). A contract contrary to the terms of an

express legislative enactment is illegal and unenforceable. Jordan v. Nationstar

Mortgage, LLC, 185 Wn.2d 876, 883, 374 P.3d 1195 (2016); State v. Northwest

Magnesite Co., 28 Wn.2d 1, 26, 182 P.2d 643 (1947). Parties to a contract cannot avoid a

statute through the inclusion of a contrary contractual provision. Failor’s Pharmacy v.