Page 232 - Washington Nonprofit Handbook 2018 Edition
P. 232

e.     Sexual Orientation Discrimination

                       A prohibition on sexual orientation discrimination was added to the WLAD in

               2006.  The statute defines “sexual orientation” broadly to include “heterosexuality,
               homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity.” The phrase “gender
               expression  or  identity”  means  “having  or  being  perceived  as  having  a  gender
               identity,  self-image,  appearance,  behavior,  or  expression,  whether  or  not  that
               gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from
               that  traditionally  associated  with  the  sex  assigned  to  that  person  at  birth.”  RCW
               49.60.040(26).


                       f.     Harassment

                       As early as 1980, the EEOC issued guidelines specifying sexual harassment as
               a  form  of  sexual  discrimination  prohibited  by  Title  VII.    In  1985,  the  Washington
               State Supreme Court recognized for the first time that failure to correct a hostile
               work  environment  caused  by  sexual  harassment  constituted  discrimination  in
               violation  of  the  WLAD.    The  following  year  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court  addressed  a
               claim  of  sexual  harassment  brought  pursuant  to  Title  VII  for  the  first  time.    The
               Court unanimously held that a claim of sexual harassment is actionable under Title
               VII where a hostile environment is created by such harassment, even though the
               harassment has no tangible economic impact on the plaintiff’s employment.


                       The concept of unlawful harassment has since expanded far beyond gender-
               based  claims.    The  Washington  Supreme  Court  has  confirmed  that  the  WLAD
               provides  employees  with  a  cause  of  action  for  disability-based  hostile  work
               environment  harassment.    Federal  courts  have  upheld  hostile  work  environment
               harassment claims against employers based on same sex sexual harassment and
               harassment based on religion, race and national origin, and claims arising out of
               harassment based on sexual orientation.  Even so, harassment offenses are most
               commonly associated with conduct based on sex.


                       A prudent employer should have in place:


                       •      A clear anti-harassment policy informing all employees that workplace
                              harassment  based  on  sex,  race,  religion,  age  or  any  other  protected
                              classification will not be tolerated and will result in disciplinary action.
                              The  policy  should  provide  a  clear  complaint  procedure,  including  an
                              option  enabling  the  complaining  employee  to  bypass  the  alleged
                              harasser as well.  It should also assure that employees who do make

                              claims of harassment will be protected from retaliation;





               WASHINGTON NONPROFIT HANDBOOK                -221-                                       2018
   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237