opposition to discrimination against a different employer?" Id.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Jin Zhu V. ESD 171, No. 94209-9
B. Is Zhu entitled to attorney fees on review?
ANALYSIS
WLAD "create[s] a private cause of action against any employer engaging in
an 'unfair practice.'" Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 489, 325 P.3d
193 (2014)(emphasis omitted)(quoting Griffin v. Eller, 130 Wn.2d 58, 63,922
P.2d 788 (1996)). RCW 49.60.210(1) provides that it is an actionable unfair
practice for "any employer ... to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate
against any person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by this
chapter." (Emphasis added.)
By rendering a verdict in Zhu's favor, the jury has already decided as a
question of fact that ESD 171 refused to hire Zhu because of his opposition to
Waterville's discriminatory practices.^ See Jin Zhu v. N. Centr. Educ. Serv. Dist. -
ESD 171, No. 2:15-CV-00183-JLQ, 2016 WL 7428204, at *12(E.D. Wash. Dec.
23, 2016)(court order). The certified question asks only whether, as a matter of
law, the cause of action created by RCW 49.60.210(1) prohibits retaliatory
discrimination in hiring, as well as in existing employment relationships.
In accordance with the plain language ofRCW 49.60.210(1) and WLAD as
a whole, the answer is yes. And because the federal district court already ruled that
^ The standard of causation for WLAD antiretaliation claims is whether "retaliation was a
substantial factor behind the [defendant's] decision." Allison v. Hons. Auth, 118 Wn.2d 79,95,
821 P.2d34(1991).
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Jin Zhu V. ESD 171, No. 94209-9