an independent contractor, he is not an "employee" within the meaning of the
statute and (2) because he did not oppose a specific employment practice of his
employer, he did not engage in statutorily protected activity. Therefore, Currier
cannot assert a claim for retaliation under RCW 49.60.210(1), and the trial court
erred in denying NSI's motion for summary judgment.
To show that chapter 49.60 RCW does not protect an independent
contractor, NSI notes that WAC 162-16-230, a rule promulgated by the
Washington Human Rights Commission, excludes independent contractors from
the protections of RCW 49.60.180.19 This rule, however, provides only that
independent contractors may not enforce the civil right guaranteed in RCW
49.60.030(1) by actions of the Washington Human Rights Commission. It does
not prevent independent contractors from enforcing the broad protections of
18 Burchfiel v. Boeing Corp., 149 Wn. App. 468, 483, 205 P.3d 145 (2009)
(citing Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I, 144 Wn.2d 172, 186, 23 P.3d 440 (2001),
overruled on other grounds by McClartv v. Totem Elec, 157 Wn.2d 214, 137
P.3d 844 (2006)).
19 "Purpose of section. RCW 49.60.180 defines unfair practices in
employment. A person who works or seeks work as an independent contractor,
rather than as an employee, is not entitled to the protections of RCW 49.60.180."
WAC 162-16-230(1).
-8-
NO. 70128-2-1/9
RCW 49.60.030(1) by private lawsuit.20 And in Marouis v. City of Spokane,21 the
Washington Supreme Court held that "under the broad protections of RCW
49.60.030, an independent contractor may bring an action for discrimination in
the making or performance of contract for personal services where the alleged