discrimination, and (4)suing for racial discrimination is opposition to practices
forbidden by WLAD,then RCW 49.60.210(1) clearly applies to Zhu's claim.
First, for purposes of WLAD,an "employer" is broadly defined as "any
person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, who employs
eight or more persons, and does not include any religious or sectarian organization
not organized for private profit." RCW 49.60.040(11). ESD 171 is clearly "any
employer" in accordance with that definition, as there is no dispute that it employs
eight or more people and is not a religious or sectarian organization.
Next, as to whether Zhu is a person, WLAD defines a "person" in extremely
broad terms to include
one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, organizations,
corporations, cooperatives, legal representatives, trustees and
receivers, or any group of persons; it includes any owner, lessee,
proprietor, manager, agent, or employee, whether one or more natural
persons; and further includes any political or civil subdivisions ofthe
state and any agency or instrumentality ofthe state or of any political
or civil subdivision thereof.
RCW 49.60.040(19). Zhu is obviously a person.
Third, while WLAD does not define "discrimination," it would defy the
ordinary meaning ofthat word to hold that it excludes an employer's
differentiation between people in the hiring process based on an observable
characteristic, such as whether or not they have previously filed antidiscrimination
lawsuits. Therefore, when ESD 171's refused to hire Zhu because he had
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Jin Zhu V. ESD 171, No. 94209-9
previously sued Waterville for racial discrimination, ESD 171 discriminated
against Zhu.