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

1,777 chars

afford Elgiadi the opportunity to make this choice on his own. I recognize the potential

for a cold, if not hostile, environment resulting from the return to the workplace of an

employee who claimed racial discrimination. Still, this environment arises when the

employee files a claim without having been fired, and the employer possesses no

right to fire the employee for creating a mephitic milieu. Instead, the employer violates

RCW 49.60.210(1) by firing the employee despite the employee purportedly creating a

poisonous atmosphere.

The Washington law against discrimination provides that all remedies authorized

by the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq., are available to

plaintiffs in actions under the law against discrimination. RCW 49.60.030(2). Title VII

provides for the remedy of reinstatement where appropriate. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g).

We liberally construe the remedial provision of the law against discrimination in order to

encourage private enforcement. Blair v. Washington State University, 108 Wn.2d 558,

9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

570, 740 P.2d 1379 (1987). The legislature, therefore, does not consider returning the

complainant to his or her workplace a crisis to be avoided.

Of limited application is Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical

Group, 782 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2015). The Ninth Circuit answered the question: whether

a provision of a settlement agreement between Donald Golden and his former employer,

the California Emergency Physicians Medical Group (CEP), placed a “restraint of a

substantial character” on Dr. Golden’s medical practice. Golden v. California Emergency