DocketNumber: No. 70254-3
Citation Numbers: 145 Wash. 2d 379
Judges: Bridge, Chambers, Sanders
Filed Date: 12/20/2001
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
(concurring in dissent) — I concur with Justice Sanders’ dissent, but write separately concerning the Washington law regarding associational discrimination. I can think of no more insidious face of discrimination than firing an employee because of the race, or the age, or the religion of the employee’s spouse. I write separately to emphasize I do not read the majority to permit, under the guise of at will employment, the discharge of a woman because of the race of her husband. I do not read the majority to permit the discharge of a man because his employer finds his wife’s national origin offensive. And I do not believe the majority condones or would permit employer retaliation against an employee for the acts or conduct of the employee’s spouse. See generally Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Ins. Co., 79 Wn. App. 1, 901 P.2d 313 (1995).
The Legislature has declared the purpose of our Law Against Discrimination:
The legislature hereby finds and declares that practices of discrimination against any of its inhabitants because of race, creed, color, national origin, families with children, sex, marital status, age, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability . . . are a matter of state concern, that such discrimination threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of its inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundations of a free democratic state.
RCW 49.60.010. If Diane Sedlacek was discharged because of her husband’s disability, she has a viable cause of action.
Ireland, J., concurs with Chambers, J.
Adora Svitak, Apps. v. State Of Washington, Res. ( 2013 )
Kasey Cahan, Appellant/cross-respondent V. Franciscan ... ( 2021 )
Curtis Johnson, V. Silver Shores Mhp, Llc & David Robert ... ( 2021 )
Hollenback v. SHRINERS HOSPITALS , 206 P.3d 337 ( 2009 )
George E. Engstrom & John E Stockwell v. Microsoft ... ( 2019 )
Piel v. City of Federal Way ( 2013 )
Daniel Bray v. Pierce County ( 2021 )
Ericka M. Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross ( 2014 )
Umpqua Bank v. Shasta Apartments, LLC , 194 Wash. App. 685 ( 2016 )