It is illegal under State and Federal law to discriminate against an employee at a workplace.
Disparate treatment occurs when an employer treats some people less favorably than others because of sex, race, color, religion or other protective status. Hegewine v. Longview Fibre Co., 162 Wn.2d 340, 354 n.7, 172 P.3d 688 (2007). To establish a prima facie disparate treatment discrimination case, a plaintiff must show that his employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of their protected class characteristics. Shannon v. Pay ‘N Save Corp., 104 Wash.2d 722, 726, 709 P.2d 799 (1985), Alonso v. Quest Communications Co., LLC, 178 Wn. App. 734, 743 (2013) citing Johnson v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 80 Wn. App. 212, 226, 907 P.2d 1223 (1996). There is liability for discrimination if the employee’s protected characteristic was a “substantial factor” in the employment decision; it does not need to be the determining factor. Mackay v. Acorn Custom Cabinetry, 127 Wn.2d 302 (1995). A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case by either offering direct evidence of an employer’s discriminatory intent, or by satisfying the McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting Test.
The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis is applied when a plaintiff lacks direct evidence of discrimination. It takes its name from the US Supreme Court decision that created the framework, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Traditional McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting operates as follows:
- The plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, which means demonstrating that:
- the plaintiff is a member of a protected class;
- the plaintiff was qualified for and applied for an available position;
- despite being qualified, the plaintiff was rejected for the position; and
- the position remained available after the plaintiff’s rejection, and the defendant-employer continued to seek applicants from persons of the plaintiff’s qualifications.
- The burden of production shifts to the defendant-employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action.
- The plaintiff must then demonstrate that the employer’s reason was a pretext for discrimination.
