discrimination is based on sex, race, creed, color, national origin or disability."
The broad language of RCW 49.60.210(1) likewise supports the conclusion that
the WLAD does not limit claims to those brought by employees against
employers.22 We hold that RCW 49.60.030 and .210(1) protect Currier as an
independent contractor.
NSI next argues that because the racially derogatory statement came from
Howell, an independent contractor, it cannot be imputed to NSI. Therefore
Currier did not oppose a specific employment practice of NSI, and WLAD does
not protect his objection to the statement.
NSI relies on certain federal cases including Silver v. KCA. Inc.,23 in which
the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff could not maintain a retaliation claim under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 196424 because she was opposing a racially
20 Rights of independent contractors. While an independent
contractor does not have the protection of RCW 49.60.180, the
contractor is protected by RCW 49.60.030(1). The general civil
right defined in RCW 49.60.030(1) is enforceable by private lawsuit
in court under RCW 49.60.030(2) but not by actions of the
Washington state human rights commission.
WAC 162-16-230(2).
21 130 Wn.2d 97, 100-01,112-13, 922 P.2d 43 (1996); see also Galbraith
v. TAPCO Credit Union, 88 Wn. App. 939, 949-50, 946 P.2d 1242 (1997).
22 Galbraith, 88 Wn. App. at 951.
23 586 F.2d 138, 140-41 (9th Cir.1978).
24 42 U.S.C. § 200e-3(a).
NO. 70128-2-1/10
discriminatory act not of her employer but of a co-worker. That court held, "The
opposition must be directed at an unlawful employment practice of an employer,
not an act of discrimination by a private individual."25