Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

(c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without discrimination, including discrimination against families with children;

(d) The right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination;

(e) The right to engage in insurance transactions or transactions with health maintenance organizations without discrimination: PROVIDED, That a practice which is not unlawful under RCW 48.30.300, 48.44.220, or 48.46.370 does not constitute an unfair practice for the purposes of this subparagraph;

(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national origin, citizenship or immigration status, or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices; and

(g) The right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.

(2) Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in violation of this chapter shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys' fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.).

(3) Except for any unfair practice committed by an employer against an employee or a prospective employee, or any unfair practice in a real estate transaction which is the basis for relief specified in the amendments to RCW 49.60.225 contained in chapter 69, Laws of 1993, any unfair practice prohibited by this chapter which is committed in the course of trade or commerce as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW, is, for the purpose of applying that chapter, a matter affecting the public interest, is not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business, and is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce.

[ 2020 c 52 s 4; 2009 c 164 s 1; 2007 c 187 s 3; 2006 c 4 s 3; 1997 c 271 s 2; 1995 c 135 s 3. Prior: 1993 c 510 s 3; 1993 c 69 s 1; 1984 c 32 s 2; 1979 c 127 s 2; 1977 ex.s. c 192 s 1; 1974 ex.s. c 32 s 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 214 s 3; 1973 c 141 s 3; 1969 ex.s. c 167 s 2; 1957 c 37 s 3; 1949 c 183 s 2; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 7614-21.]

Notes:

Intent—1995 c 135: See note following RCW 29A.08.760.

Severability—1993 c 510: See note following RCW 49.60.010.

Severability—1993 c 69: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1993 c 69 s 17.]

Severability—1969 ex.s. c 167: See note following RCW 49.60.010.

Severability—1957 c 37: See note following RCW 49.60.010.

Severability—1949 c 183: See note following RCW 49.60.010.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 464 cases (125 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case: Kilian v. Atkinson, 50 P.3d 638 (Wash. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kilian v. Atkinson, 50 P.3d 638 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 111× “— The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, in an action pending in that court, by order dated October 9, 2001, certified to this court one question of state law asking whether an age discrimination claim can be asserted by an independent…”

Marquis v. City of Spokane, 922 P.2d 43 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 69× “We hold that under the broad protections of RCW 49.60.030, an independent contractor may bring an action for discrimination in the making or performance of *101 contract for personal services where the alleged discrimination is based on sex, race, creed, color, national origin…”

Griffin v. Eller, 922 P.2d 788 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 39× “Griffin brought suit alleging illegal sex discrimination under RCW 49.60.030 and .180, and various common law claims.”

Dailey v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 919 P.2d 589 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 26× “) The "as amended" language was adopted in two separate legislative enactments by the 1993 Legislature, ch.”

Dailey v. North Coast Life Ins., 129 Wash. 2d 572 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 26× “) The "as amended” language was adopted in two separate legislative, enactments by the 1993 Legislature, ch. 69, Laws of 1993, § 1 and ch.”

Blair v. Washington State Univ., 740 P.2d 1379 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 15× “The use of deferred payment plans for expert witnesses is supported by the policy of RCW 49.60.030, which encourages good faith litigation, and may improve courtroom access to civil rights litigants who cannot initially afford expert witness fees.”

Floeting v. Grp. Health Coop., 434 P.3d 39 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 10× “, dissenting indirectly, id.; and (4)that the discrimination occurred "because of the plaintiffs status or, in other words, that the protected status was a substantial factor causing the discrimination, RCW 49.”

MacKay v. Acorn Custom Cabinetry, Inc., 898 P.2d 284 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 14× “180(3) was to be construed liberally to achieve its purposes, and that a civil cause of action was provided by RCW 49.60.030(2) to persons injured by such violations.”

Currier v. Northland Servs., Inc., 332 P.3d 1006 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 13× “8 ANALYSIS RCW 49.60.030 and .210 ¶14 The Washington Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the WLAD expresses a “ ‘public policy of the highest priority.”

Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 103 P.3d 773 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 7× “ion for discretionary review to this court asserting that (1) the trial court’s order granting Fred Lind Manor’s motion to compel arbitration violated his right to a jury trial under article I, section 21 of the state constitution; (2) the WLAD mandates a judicial forum; (3) the…”

Blaney v. Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists, 87 P.3d 757 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 9× “[1] She is also a member of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District No.”

State v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc., 441 P.3d 1203 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 9× “020 ; RCW 49.60.030 ) by refusing to sell floral services for same-sex weddings and (2) that both Stutzman (personally) and Arlene's Flowers (the corporate defendant) were liable for these violations.”

Show all 464 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(1) — 88 cases

Kilian v. Atkinson, 50 P.3d 638 (Wash. 2002). “— The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, in an action pending in that court, by order dated October 9, 2001, certified to this court one question of state law asking whether an age discrimination claim can be asserted by an independent…”

Marquis v. City of Spokane, 922 P.2d 43 (Wash. 1996). “We hold that under the broad protections of RCW 49.60.030, an independent contractor may bring an action for discrimination in the making or performance of *101 contract for personal services where the alleged discrimination is based on sex, race, creed, color, national origin…”

Griffin v. Eller, 922 P.2d 788 (Wash. 1996). “Griffin brought suit alleging illegal sex discrimination under RCW 49.60.030 and .180, and various common law claims.”

Floeting v. Grp. Health Coop., 434 P.3d 39 (Wash. 2019). “, dissenting indirectly, id.; and (4)that the discrimination occurred "because of the plaintiffs status or, in other words, that the protected status was a substantial factor causing the discrimination, RCW 49.”

State v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc., 441 P.3d 1203 (Wash. 2019). “020 ; RCW 49.60.030 ) by refusing to sell floral services for same-sex weddings and (2) that both Stutzman (personally) and Arlene's Flowers (the corporate defendant) were liable for these violations.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(1)(a) — 25 cases

Woods v. Seattle's Union Gospel Mission, 481 P.3d 1060 (Wash. 2021).

Currier v. Northland Servs., Inc., 332 P.3d 1006 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “8 ANALYSIS RCW 49.60.030 and .210 ¶14 The Washington Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the WLAD expresses a “ ‘public policy of the highest priority.”

Calhoun v. State, 146 Wash. App. 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

Hollingsworth v. Washington Mut. Sav. Bank, 681 P.2d 845 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(1)(b) — 39 cases

> FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES, TENINO AERIE NO. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 59 P.3d 655 (Wash. 2002).

MacLean v. First Nw. Indus. of Am., Inc., 635 P.2d 683 (Wash. 1981).

Blair v. Washington State Univ., 740 P.2d 1379 (Wash. 1987). “The use of deferred payment plans for expert witnesses is supported by the policy of RCW 49.60.030, which encourages good faith litigation, and may improve courtroom access to civil rights litigants who cannot initially afford expert witness fees.”

Washington State Commc'n Access Proj. v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 293 P.3d 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(1)(c) — 9 cases

Hous. Auth. of City of Everett v. Terry, 789 P.2d 745 (Wash. 1990).

Brooke Howell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 436 P.3d 368 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Marquis v. City of Spokane, 922 P.2d 43 (Wash. 1996).

State of Washington v. City of Sunnyside (E.D. Wash. 2019).

Sara Hutchinson v. Ed Putka (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(1)(d) — 2 cases

Brooke Howell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 436 P.3d 368 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Marquis v. City of Spokane, 922 P.2d 43 (Wash. 1996).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(1)(e) — 6 cases

Brooke Howell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 436 P.3d 368 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Jeannette Simonton, V. Washington State Health Care Auth. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).

Kurt Herzog V. Kaiser Found. Health Plan Of Washington, Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).

Marquis v. City of Spokane, 922 P.2d 43 (Wash. 1996).

E.S. v. Regence BlueShield (W.D. Wash. 2024).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(1)(f) — 2 cases

Brooke Howell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 436 P.3d 368 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Marquis v. City of Spokane, 922 P.2d 43 (Wash. 1996).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(2) — 244 cases

Dailey v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 919 P.2d 589 (Wash. 1996). “) The "as amended" language was adopted in two separate legislative enactments by the 1993 Legislature, ch.”

Dailey v. North Coast Life Ins., 129 Wash. 2d 572 (Wash. 1996). “) The "as amended” language was adopted in two separate legislative, enactments by the 1993 Legislature, ch. 69, Laws of 1993, § 1 and ch.”

MacKay v. Acorn Custom Cabinetry, Inc., 898 P.2d 284 (Wash. 1995). “180(3) was to be construed liberally to achieve its purposes, and that a civil cause of action was provided by RCW 49.60.030(2) to persons injured by such violations.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(3) — 12 cases

Galbraith v. Tapco Credit Union, 946 P.2d 1242 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (Wash. 1985).

Ellingson v. Spokane Mortg. Co., 573 P.2d 389 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978).

Keenan v. Allan, 889 F. Supp. 1320 (E.D. Wash. 1995).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(a) — 1 case

Antonius v. King Cnty., 103 P.3d 729 (Wash. 2005).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(l) — 2 cases

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(l)(a) — 16 cases

Antonius v. King Cnty., 103 P.3d 729 (Wash. 2004).

Pulcino v. Fed. Express Corp., 9 P.3d 787 (Wash. 2000).

Griffin v. Eller, 922 P.2d 788 (Wash. 1996). “Griffin brought suit alleging illegal sex discrimination under RCW 49.60.030 and .180, and various common law claims.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(l)(b) — 11 cases

Fraternal Order of Eagles, Tenino Aerie No. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wash. 2d 224 (Wash. 2002).

State v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc., 389 P.3d 543 (Wash. 2017).

Griffin v. Eller, 922 P.2d 788 (Wash. 1996). “Griffin brought suit alleging illegal sex discrimination under RCW 49.60.030 and .180, and various common law claims.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(l)(c) — 3 cases

Hous. Auth. of City of Everett v. Terry, 789 P.2d 745 (Wash. 1990).

Tafoya v. Human Rights Comm'n, 311 P.3d 70 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(l)(d) — 2 cases

Galbraith v. Tapco Credit Union, 946 P.2d 1242 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(l)(e) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(l)(f) — 2 cases

Akiyama v. United States Judo Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (W.D. Wash. 2002).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(l)(g) — 1 case

Brooke Howell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 436 P.3d 368 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.