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

Related Parts of This Source

1,795 chars

employer from a hostile work environment or from discriminatory treatment based on the

employee’s race, age, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Since ridding the workplace

from retaliatory treatment deserves an even higher priority, the law must also preclude

advance waivers of retaliation claims.

In Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2003), the court

entered a preliminary injunction against the application of the county’s alleged policy of

settling civil rights suits only on a signed waiver by the plaintiff to forgo recovery of

attorney fees. The policy would likely violate the purposes underlying 42 U.S.C. § 1988,

which affords successful civil rights plaintiffs recovery of fees. Similarly, the State’s

demand that any employee sign a waiver of the right to forgo rehiring interferes with the

14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

policy behind rectifying employment discrimination and behind precluding retaliation for

opposing discrimination.

Equitable Estoppel

Next in its long list of defenses, WSU asserts equitable estoppel. When arguing

equitable estoppel, WSU fails to independently analyze the elements of estoppel. WSU

does not enlighten this court on how equitable estoppel trumps the highest of priority in

preventing discrimination and retaliation. WSU does not forward any case that upholds,

on the basis of estoppel, an agreement to forgo claims for retaliation.

The elements of equitable estoppel include: (1) an admission, statement, or act

inconsistent with the claim afterward asserted, (2) justifiable reliance by the other party

on the faith of such admission, statement, or act, and (3) injury to such other party.