that Zhu's WLAD antiretaliation claim must fail because RCW 49.60.210(1) does
not prohibit retaliatory discrimination against job applicants by prospective
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Jin Zhu V. ESD 171, No. 94209-9
employers. The court denied reconsideration. Following a jury trial, Zhu
prevailed on his WLAD antiretaliation claim and was awarded damages.
ESD 171 then filed a motion for judgment as a matter oflaw or for a new
trial, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury instructions, and
asking in the alternative that the district court certify to us the question of RCW
49.60.210(l)'s scope. Despite its earlier ruling denying reconsideration, the
district court granted the motion in part and certified the following question
regarding the scope of RCW 49.60.210(1)to this court:"Does RCW 49.60.210(1)
create a cause of action for job applicants who claim a prospective employer
refused to hire them in retaliation for prior opposition to discrimination against a
different employer?" Order Certifying Question at 7. The court otherwise denied
the motion, ruling that
[i]f the Washington Supreme Court finds RCW 49.60.210(1)
provides a cause of action to a prospective employee against a
prospective employer not involved in the underlying discrimination
claim the jury verdict in this case will be upheld. If the Washington
Supreme Court finds RCW 49.60.210(1) does not provide such a
cause of action, the jury verdict in this case will be vacated.
Id.
ISSUES
A. "Does RCW 49.60.210(1) create a cause of action for job applicants
who claim a prospective employer refused to hire them in retaliation for prior