Jin Zhu v. N. Cent. Educ. Serv. District
94209-9
| Wash. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- Jin Zhu, a former Waterville School District teacher, filed suit alleging racial discrimination and retaliation by Waterville; the matter settled and he resigned in March 2012.
- Three months later Zhu applied to North Central Educational Service District — ESD 171 for a Math-Science Specialist role; the hiring committee knew of his prior lawsuit and hired a different candidate.
- Zhu sued ESD 171 under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60.210(1), alleging ESD 171 refused to hire him in retaliation for opposing discrimination at Waterville.
- The federal district court submitted the certified question to the Washington Supreme Court: whether RCW 49.60.210(1) creates a cause of action for job applicants refused hire by a prospective employer in retaliation for prior opposition to discrimination at a different employer.
- A jury had found for Zhu; the Washington Supreme Court considered statutory interpretation of WLAD and answered the certified question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 49.60.210(1) prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in retaliation for the applicant's prior opposition to discrimination at another employer | RCW 49.60.210(1)'s plain language — forbidding any employer from "otherwise discriminat[ing]" against "any person" for opposing practices forbidden by WLAD — covers refusals to hire by prospective employers | Antiretaliation provision was intended to apply only within existing employment relationships (current employer), so it does not reach refusals to hire by prospective employers | Yes. RCW 49.60.210(1) prohibits retaliatory refusals to hire by prospective employers; all statutory elements met and WLAD must be liberally construed to effect its purpose |
| Whether WLAD's definitions and structure limit "employer" to current employer only | Zhu: WLAD defines "employer" broadly; related provisions (e.g., refusal to hire) show scope includes prospective employers | ESD 171: statutory text references "discharge" and "expel" suggesting a focus on existing employment | Court: WLAD's definitions and structure include prospective employers; refusal to hire is an employment action covered by WLAD |
| Whether the listed retaliatory actions (discharge/expel) narrow "otherwise discriminate" to conduct within preexisting employment | Zhu: "Otherwise discriminate" is broad and must include hiring refusals; employment agencies are expressly covered | ESD 171: the explicit examples imply limitation to adverse actions affecting current employment | Court: The examples do not restrict the breadth; statutory structure (RCW 49.60.180–210) and purpose support coverage of hiring refusals |
| Award of attorney fees on review | Zhu: as prevailing party on certified question, entitled to fees under RAP 18.1(a) and RCW 49.60.030(2) | ESD 171: (implicit) no entitlement | Court: Granted; remanded to district court to determine amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481 (discussing WLAD private cause of action and statutory interpretation)
- Allison v. Hons. Auth., 118 Wn.2d 79 (standard for causation in WLAD antiretaliation claims; substantial factor test)
- Champion v. Shoreline Sch. Dist. No. 412, 81 Wn.2d 672 (same word used consistently across statutory scheme)
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (antiretaliation statutes protect access to remedial mechanisms; policy rationale)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (definition of adverse employment action informs retaliation analysis)
- Warnek v. ABB Combustion Eng’g Servs., Inc., 137 Wn.2d 450 (distinguished; interpreted a materially different statute regarding rehire claims)