Thus, based on its language, context, and structure, the nonexclusive list of
prohibited unfair retaliatory practices in RCW 49.60.210(1) does not indicate a
18
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Jin Zhu V. ESD 171, No. 94209-9
legislative intent to allow retaliatory discrimination in hiring by a prospective
employer against a job applicant.
4. The purposes of WLAD would be severely undermined by ESD 171's
interpretation
Finally, any plain language interpretation of a WLAD provision must
consider the legislature's express statement of purpose and mandate for liberal
construction. These considerations erase any possible doubt about the plain
meaning of RCW 49.60.210(1) and make it clear that ESD IVl's interpretation is
not what the legislature intended.
WLAD's purpose is plain: the "elimination and prevention of discrimination
in employment, in credit and insurance transactions, in places of public resort,
accommodation, or amusement, and in real property transactions." RCW
49.60.010. As relevant to this case, the right to be free from invidious
discrimination includes "[t]he right to obtain and hold employment without
discrimination." RCW 49.60.030(l)(a). Such discrimination in hiring and
employment based on protected characteristics "threatens not only the rights and
proper privileges of its inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a
free democratic state." RCW 49.60.010. The overarching importance of
eradicating such discrimination requires that WLAD's provisions "be construed
liberally for the accomplishment ofthe purposes thereof." RCW 49.60.020.
19
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Jin Zhu V. ESD 171, No. 94209-9