if we answer in the affirmative, then "the jury verdict in this case will be upheld,"
Zhu is entitled to attorney fees on review in accordance with RAP 18.1(a) and
RCW 49.60.030(2). Order Certifying Question at 7.
A. The answer to the certified question is yes
Since its inception in 1949, WLAD has always contained an antiretaliation
statute. Laws of 1949, ch. 183, § 7(4). Like all antiretaliation statutes, RCW
49.60.210(l)'s primary purpose is "[mjaintaining unfettered access to statutory
remedial mechanisms." Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 346, 117 S. Ct.
843, 136 L. Ed. 2d 808 (1997). As we have previously recognized,"[pjeople will
be less likely to oppose discrimination by bringing claims or testifying if this court
does not provide them some measure of protection against retaliation." Allison v.
Hons. Autk, 118 Wn.2d 79, 94, 821 P.2d 34(1991). Thus, in order to encourage
people to oppose discrimination, RCW 49.60.210(1) provides in full:
It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor
union, or other person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate
against any person because he or she has opposed any practices
forbidden by this chapter, or because he or she has filed a charge,
testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter.
Very few opinions by this court have discussed this provision, and no Washington
court has considered whether RCW 49.60.210(1) prohibits retaliatory
discrimination against job applicants by prospective employers.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Jin Zhu V. ESD 171, No. 94209-9
We decide this certified question of statutory interpretation as a matter of
law. Allen v. Dameron, 187 Wn.2d 692, 701, 389 P.3d 487(2017). In order to