The short version
- Eight employees, not 15. The law covers employers with eight or more employees, below the federal threshold, excluding religious or sectarian nonprofits.
- Broader protected classes than federal law, including marital status, sexual orientation and gender identity, citizenship or immigration status, and veteran or military status.
- Supervisors can be personally liable (Brown v. Scott Paper Worldwide, 2001).
- Employees can go straight to court. Filing with the Washington State Human Rights Commission is optional; a lawsuit can be filed within three years.
- Damages include emotional distress and attorneys' fees, but not punitive damages (Dailey v. North Coast Life, 1996).
- Claims are rising. Washington EEOC charges reached 1,724 in fiscal 2025, with retaliation in 68% and disability in 50%; those counts exclude complaints filed only with the state commission. See the data.
Who the law covers
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Which employers? | Any employer of eight or more persons, and anyone acting in the employer's interest; religious or sectarian organizations not organized for private profit are excluded (RCW 49.60.040) |
| Who is protected? | Employees and job applicants |
| Who can be liable? | The employer, and supervisors personally for their own discriminatory acts |
| Smaller employers? | Below eight employees, the employment provisions do not apply, though other laws may |
Protected classes
Washington protects against employment discrimination because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation (including gender expression or identity), race (including hair texture and protective hairstyles), creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, disability, and the use of a trained dog guide or service animal (RCW 49.60.180).
What employers cannot do
| Unfair practice | Section |
|---|---|
| Refuse to hire because of a protected class | RCW 49.60.180(1) |
| Discharge or bar from employment | RCW 49.60.180(2) |
| Discriminate in compensation or other terms or conditions | RCW 49.60.180(3) |
| Publish job ads or statements expressing a limitation or preference based on a protected class, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification | RCW 49.60.180(4) |
| Retaliate against anyone who opposed a forbidden practice, filed a charge, testified, or assisted | RCW 49.60.210 |
Harassment
In Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific (1985), a sexual harassment case, the Washington Supreme Court set out what an employee must show. The harassment was:
- Unwelcome
- Because of sex
- Sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment
- Imputable to the employer: an owner or manager took part, or the employer knew or should have known and failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action
The fourth element is where employers can protect themselves: a clear complaint process and a prompt, documented response.
Accommodation
| Type | Washington rule |
|---|---|
| Disability | Employers must reasonably accommodate a disability; for accommodation purposes, the impairment must be known or shown through an interactive process and have a substantially limiting effect (RCW 49.60.040) |
| Religion | The law includes a duty to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practices, and an employee can sue for failure to accommodate (Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, 2014) |
Disability is one of the fastest-growing grounds for charges: Washington disability charges at the EEOC grew 149% from fiscal 2021 to 2025.
Deadlines and process
| Path | Deadline | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Washington State Human Rights Commission | Within six months of the act (one year for pregnancy, two years for whistleblower retaliation) | Investigation; if reasonable cause is found, conciliation |
| EEOC | Within 300 days | Investigation, mediation, right-to-sue notice |
| Lawsuit under WLAD | Within three years (Antonius v. King County, 2004) | No requirement to file with the commission first |
Remedies
| Available | Not available |
|---|---|
| Actual damages, including lost wages | Punitive damages (Dailey v. North Coast Life, 1996) |
| Damages for emotional distress and mental suffering | |
| Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs | |
| Injunctive relief |
Fee shifting is a large part of the exposure: a plaintiff who wins can recover attorneys' fees, which can exceed the damages in a smaller case.
How EPLI responds to a WLAD claim
| Claim | EPLI |
|---|---|
| Discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to accommodate | Usually covered, including defense of commission and EEOC charges |
| Personal claims against a supervisor | Usually covered if the supervisor is an insured under the policy |
| Emotional distress damages and attorneys' fees awarded | Usually covered as damages, subject to the limit |
| Cost of reinstating or accommodating | Usually excluded as a cost of compliance |
See what EPLI covers and the complete EPLI guide.