RETALIATION DEMAND LETTER

Washington Law Against Discrimination and Anti-Retaliation Claims

[ATTORNEY/FIRM LETTERHEAD]

[Firm Name]
[Address Line 1]
[City, Washington ZIP]
Tel: [Phone Number]
Fax: [Fax Number]
[Attorney Email]
[Washington State Bar Number]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [recipient_email]

[Date]

[Employer Contact Name]
[Title]
[Company Legal Name]
[Company Address]
[City, State ZIP]

Copy to:
[General Counsel]
[EPLI Carrier, if known]

Re: Unlawful Retaliation Against [Client Full Name]
HRC Charge No.: [XXXXX] (if applicable)
EEOC Charge No.: [XXX-XXXX-XXXXX] (if applicable)
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION PURSUANT TO WASH. R. EVID. 408

Dear [Mr./Ms./Mx. Last Name]:

This firm represents [Client Full Name] ("our client") in connection with claims of unlawful retaliation against [Company Legal Name] ("[Company Short Name]" or "the Company"). Please direct all future communications regarding this matter to our office.

Our client engaged in legally protected activity by [briefly describe protected activity], and [Company Short Name] retaliated by [briefly describe adverse action]. This retaliation violates Washington law and exposes the Company to substantial liability for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.

We write to demand immediate resolution of this matter and to advise that we are prepared to file suit if a satisfactory response is not received.

I. WASHINGTON-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD)

The Washington Law Against Discrimination, Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.60.010 et seq., provides comprehensive protection against discrimination and retaliation in employment.

Anti-Retaliation Provision: Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.60.210(1) makes it an unfair practice for any employer to discriminate against any person because that person has opposed any practices forbidden by the WLAD, or because that person has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under the WLAD.

Protected Classes (among the broadest in the nation):
- Race
- Creed
- Color
- National origin
- Citizenship or immigration status
- Sex (including pregnancy)
- Sexual orientation
- Gender expression or identity
- Honorably discharged veteran or military status
- Presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability
- Use of a trained dog guide or service animal
- Age (40+)
- Marital status
- HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C status

Administrative Exhaustion: NOT required. Washington employees may file directly in court or may choose to file with the Washington State Human Rights Commission (HRC). Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.60.230.

Statute of Limitations: Three (3) years from the date of the violation. Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.60.230(2).

Remedies under WLAD (Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.60.030(2)):
- Compensatory damages (no cap)
- Actual damages
- Punitive damages (no cap)
- Costs and reasonable attorney's fees
- Injunctive relief
- Any other appropriate remedy

B. Washington Common Law Wrongful Discharge

Washington recognizes a robust common law cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

Key Case Law:
- Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219 (1984) (seminal case)
- Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612 (1989) (expanding scope)
- Korslund v. DynCorp Tri-Cities Servs., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 168 (2005) (whistleblower protection)
- Martin v. Gonzaga Univ., 191 Wn.2d 712 (2018) (recent developments)

Elements:

Under Washington law, a plaintiff must establish:
1. The existence of a clear public policy (the "clarity" element);
2. Discouraging the conduct in which the employee engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the "jeopardy" element);
3. The public-policy-linked conduct caused the dismissal (the "causation" element); and
4. The defendant has not offered an overriding justification for the dismissal (the "absence of justification" element).

Sources of Public Policy:
- Constitutional provisions
- Statutes
- Administrative regulations
- Recognized professional codes of ethics

Statute of Limitations: Three (3) years for tort claims. Wash. Rev. Code Section 4.16.080(2).

C. Washington Whistleblower Protection Act (Public Employees)

Wash. Rev. Code Section 42.40.010 et seq. protects state employees who report improper governmental action.

Protected Activity:
- Reporting improper governmental action
- Cooperating in an investigation
- Providing information regarding suspected improper actions

Application: This statute applies only to state and local government employees, not private employers.

Statute of Limitations: Two (2) years from the date of the retaliatory action.

D. Workers' Compensation Retaliation

Wash. Rev. Code Section 51.48.025 prohibits discharge or discrimination against workers who file workers' compensation claims.

II. NATURE OF THE PROTECTED ACTIVITY

Our client engaged in one or more forms of protected activity that triggered [Company Short Name]'s unlawful retaliation:

A. Type of Protected Activity

[Check all that apply]

Opposition to Discrimination/Harassment (WLAD)
- [ ] Complained internally about discrimination based on [race / creed / color / national origin / citizenship status / sex / sexual orientation / gender identity / veteran status / disability / age / marital status]
- [ ] Complained internally about harassment or hostile work environment
- [ ] Reported discrimination or harassment to human resources
- [ ] Filed a formal internal complaint or grievance

Participation in Discrimination Proceedings (WLAD)
- [ ] Filed a charge with HRC or EEOC
- [ ] Participated in an HRC investigation
- [ ] Testified or provided information in a discrimination proceeding
- [ ] Served as a witness in a co-worker's case

Public Policy-Based Activity (Common Law)
- [ ] Refused to violate a law
- [ ] Reported illegal activity to management
- [ ] Reported illegal activity to a government agency
- [ ] Exercised a statutory right
- [ ] Performed a public duty (e.g., jury service)
- [ ] Reported safety violations

Workers' Compensation Activity (Section 51.48.025)
- [ ] Filed a workers' compensation claim
- [ ] Testified in a workers' compensation proceeding
- [ ] Sought treatment for a work-related injury

Other Protected Activity
- [ ] Engaged in concerted activity protected by the NLRA
- [ ] Reported OSHA violations
- [ ] [Other: describe]

B. Timeline of Protected Activity

C. Detailed Narrative

On [Date], our client [describe the protected activity in detail]:

[Provide comprehensive narrative including:
- What our client observed, learned, or experienced that prompted the protected activity
- The specific concerns raised or actions taken
- To whom the concerns were raised (names, titles)
- The manner of reporting (verbal, written, formal complaint)
- Any response received from management or HR
- Any instructions given to our client regarding the matter
- Any witnesses to the protected activity]

Our client's [complaint / report / testimony / action] was made in good faith and based on a reasonable belief that [the conduct complained of was unlawful / the information reported was accurate / the activity opposed was illegal].

III. THE RETALIATORY CONDUCT

A. Adverse Employment Actions

Following our client's protected activity, [Company Short Name] subjected [him/her/them] to the following retaliatory adverse employment actions:

[Check all applicable actions and provide details]

Termination/Constructive Discharge
- [ ] Our client was terminated on [Date]
- [ ] Our client was forced to resign due to intolerable conditions on [Date]

Demotion/Reassignment
- [ ] Demoted from [Former Position] to [New Position] on [Date]
- [ ] Reassigned to less desirable duties/location/shift on [Date]
- [ ] Stripped of [responsibilities / authority / direct reports] on [Date]

Compensation Reductions
- [ ] Salary reduced from $[Amount] to $[Amount] on [Date]
- [ ] Bonus denied or reduced on [Date]
- [ ] Hours reduced from [X] to [X] per week on [Date]

Performance/Discipline
- [ ] Received negative performance review on [Date] (previously had positive reviews)
- [ ] Placed on performance improvement plan (PIP) on [Date]
- [ ] Received written warning on [Date] for [pretextual reason]
- [ ] Suspended [with/without] pay from [Date] to [Date]

Hostile Treatment/Exclusion
- [ ] Excluded from meetings, communications, or decisions
- [ ] Subjected to increased scrutiny and micromanagement
- [ ] Isolated from coworkers or ostracized
- [ ] Given impossible tasks or set up to fail

Other Adverse Actions
- [ ] Denied promotion to [Position] on [Date]
- [ ] Negative reference provided to prospective employer
- [ ] [Other: describe]

B. Timeline of Retaliation

C. Evidence of Causal Connection

The causal connection between our client's protected activity and the adverse actions is demonstrated by:

1. Temporal Proximity

The adverse actions began just [X days/weeks] after our client's protected activity. Washington courts recognize that close temporal proximity between protected activity and adverse action supports an inference of causation. See Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 118 Wn.2d 46 (1991).

2. Knowledge

The decision-makers who took adverse action against our client had knowledge of [his/her/their] protected activity.

3. Pattern of Antagonism

Following the protected activity, our client experienced a sudden shift in treatment from positive to hostile.

4. Pretext

The reasons offered by [Company Short Name] for the adverse actions are pretextual.

IV. LEGAL CLAIMS

A. Washington Law Against Discrimination - Retaliation

Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.60.210

Our client [opposed discrimination / filed a charge / testified / participated in an investigation] and suffered retaliation as a result.

The protected conduct related to discrimination based on [identify protected class under WLAD].

B. Common Law Wrongful Discharge - Public Policy Exception

As established in Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219 (1984), our client is entitled to recover for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy because:

[Select applicable theory]

• [ ] Refusal Theory: Our client was discharged for refusing to violate a clear public policy, specifically [describe the refusal and cite the public policy source].

• [ ] Reporting Theory: Our client was discharged for reporting a violation of public policy, specifically [describe the reporting and cite the public policy source]. See Korslund v. DynCorp Tri-Cities Servs., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 168 (2005).

• [ ] Exercise of Right Theory: Our client was discharged for exercising a statutory right or public duty.

The clear public policy at issue is established by [cite specific Washington statute, constitutional provision, regulation, or professional code of ethics].

C. Workers' Compensation Retaliation

Wash. Rev. Code Section 51.48.025

Our client was discharged or discriminated against for [filing a workers' compensation claim / exercising rights under the Industrial Insurance Act].

D. Federal Claims (If Applicable)

[Include if federal claims are being asserted alongside Washington claims]

• [ ] Title VII Anti-Retaliation, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-3(a)
• [ ] 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (Race-Based Retaliation)
• [ ] ADA Anti-Retaliation, 42 U.S.C. Section 12203
• [ ] ADEA Anti-Retaliation, 29 U.S.C. Section 623(d)
• [ ] FLSA Anti-Retaliation, 29 U.S.C. Section 215(a)(3)

V. DAMAGES

A. Economic Damages

1. Lost Wages (Back Pay)

2. Lost Benefits

3. Front Pay

B. Compensatory Damages

For emotional distress and other non-economic harm:

• [Describe emotional impact]
• [Describe physical manifestations]
• [Describe impact on daily life]

Compensatory damages: $[Amount]

Note: Washington imposes NO statutory caps on compensatory damages.

C. Punitive Damages

For willful, malicious, or egregious conduct:

Punitive damages: $[Amount]

Note: Washington imposes NO statutory caps on punitive damages.

D. Interest

Pre-judgment interest as provided by Washington law.

E. Attorney's Fees and Costs

Washington law provides for recovery of reasonable attorney's fees in WLAD cases under Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.60.030(2).

Estimated fees through trial: $[Amount]
Estimated costs: $[Amount]

F. Summary of Damages

VI. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based on the foregoing, we demand that [Company Short Name] pay $[Settlement Demand Amount] in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the unlawful retaliation against our client.

Settlement Terms

In addition to the monetary payment, settlement must include:

• [ ] Neutral Reference: [Company Short Name] will provide only dates of employment and final position
• [ ] Personnel File: Expungement of all documents related to the pretextual discipline and termination
• [ ] Non-Disparagement: Mutual non-disparagement provisions
• [ ] Confidentiality: Subject to negotiation
• [ ] Unemployment: [Company Short Name] will not contest unemployment benefits

VII. RESPONSE DEADLINE

Please respond to this demand in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt, no later than [Response Deadline Date].

Critical Deadlines:
- WLAD claims (3 years): [Date]
- Common law claims (3 years): [Date]
- EEOC filing deadline (if applicable): [Date]

If we do not receive a satisfactory response, we will file suit in [Washington Superior Court, [County] County] or [United States District Court, Western/Eastern District of Washington] asserting:

1. Retaliation in violation of Washington Law Against Discrimination, Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.60.210
2. Common law wrongful discharge in violation of public policy
3. Workers' compensation retaliation, Wash. Rev. Code Section 51.48.025 [if applicable]
4. [Additional claims as applicable]

VIII. DOCUMENT PRESERVATION

This letter constitutes formal notice of litigation. [Company Short Name] must immediately implement a litigation hold to preserve all documents and ESI relevant to our client's employment, the protected activity, and all adverse actions.

Spoliation of evidence may result in sanctions and adverse inferences under Washington law.

IX. CONFIDENTIALITY

This letter is a confidential settlement communication protected by Washington Rule of Evidence 408 and applicable state law.

We are prepared to discuss resolution of this matter at your earliest convenience. Please contact me to arrange a settlement conference.

Sincerely,

[Attorney Name]
[Title]
[Firm Name]

[Attorney Signature Block]

Enclosures:
- [ ] HRC Charge (if applicable)
- [ ] EEOC Charge (if applicable)
- [ ] Authorization to Represent

cc: [Client Name] (via email)
[File]

WASHINGTON-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

Employee-Friendly Jurisdiction: Washington has some of the most robust employee protections in the nation. The WLAD provides broad protections, no damage caps, and no administrative exhaustion requirement.

No Administrative Exhaustion: Washington employees may file WLAD claims directly in court without first filing with the HRC or EEOC. This provides significant procedural flexibility.

Three-Year Statute of Limitations: Both WLAD and common law claims have three-year statutes of limitations, which is longer than most states.

No Damage Caps: Washington imposes no statutory caps on compensatory or punitive damages. This makes Washington a favorable jurisdiction for plaintiffs with substantial damages.

Broad Protected Classes: WLAD protects more classes than virtually any other state, including citizenship/immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, and HIV/AIDS/hepatitis C status.

Strong Common Law Whistleblower Protection: Washington courts, particularly in Korslund, have recognized robust common law protection for employees who report illegal activity.

Four-Element Test: Washington uses a clear four-element test for common law wrongful discharge claims (clarity, jeopardy, causation, absence of justification).

Attorney's Fee Shifting: WLAD provides for attorney's fees to prevailing plaintiffs, making it easier to obtain legal representation.

Tech Industry Presence: Washington is home to major technology companies, and tech industry employment issues often arise. Be familiar with unique issues in this sector.

Paid Family and Medical Leave: Washington has robust paid family and medical leave laws. Retaliation for exercising these rights may be actionable.