^ At oral argument the court asked counsel for ESD 171,"You're saying the legislature
has decided that, and they've said that an employer can discriminate and not hire anyone who's
ever complained about, or testified on behalf of anyone who's been, mistreated in employment?"
Wash. Supreme Court oral argument, Jin Zhu v. N. Centr. Educ. Serv. Dist. -ESD 171, No.
94209-9(Sept. 12, 2017), at 39 min., 20 sec., audio recording by TVW,Washington State's
Public Affairs Network, http;//www.tvw.org. Counsel acknowledged that was its position.
20
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Jin Zhu V. ESD 171, No. 94209-9
retaliatory discrimination in direct contravention of everything WLAD is meant to
accomplish.
RCW 49.60.210(1)'s plain language, read in context, does make retaliatory
refusal to hire an unfair practice, and RCW 49.60.030(2) plainly provides that any
person who has been subjected to an unfair practice has the right to bring a civil
cause of action. Therefore, Zhu's claim that ESD 171 refused to hire him in
retaliation for his prior opposition to Waterville's discriminatory practices stated a
viable cause of action in accordance with the plain language of WLAD. Because
there is no ambiguity, we need not reach ESD IVl's arguments about legislative
history, cases from other jurisdictions, and definitions of nonstatutory words.
The answer to the certified question is unambiguously yes.
B. Zhu is entitled to attorney fees
Because Zhu is the prevailing party, we grant his request for reasonable
attorney fees on review pursuant to RAP 18.1(a) and RCW 49.60.030(2). We
defer to the district court to determine the appropriate amount offees when it
enters final judgment for Zhu.
CONCLUSION