Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.240 (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)(a) Except as provided for in (c) of this subsection, after the filing of any complaint, the chairperson of the commission shall refer it to the appropriate section of the commission's staff for prompt review and evaluation of the complaint. If the facts as stated in the complaint do not constitute an unfair practice under this chapter, a finding of no reasonable cause may be made without further investigation. If the facts as stated could constitute an unfair practice under this chapter, a full investigation and ascertainment of the facts shall be conducted.
(b) If the complainant has limitations related to language proficiency or cognitive or other disability, as part of the review and evaluation under (a) of this subsection, the commission's staff must contact the complainant directly and make appropriate inquiry of the complainant as to the facts of the complaint.
(c) After the filing of a complaint alleging an unfair practice in a real estate transaction pursuant to RCW 49.60.222 through 49.60.225, the chairperson of the commission shall refer it to the appropriate section of the commission's staff for prompt investigation and ascertainment of the facts alleged in the complaint.
(2) The investigation shall be limited to the alleged facts contained in the complaint. The results of the investigation shall be reduced to written findings of fact, and a finding shall be made that there is or that there is not reasonable cause for believing that an unfair practice has been or is being committed. A copy of the findings shall be provided to the complainant and to the person named in such complaint, hereinafter referred to as the respondent.
(3) If the finding is made that there is reasonable cause for believing that an unfair practice has been or is being committed, the commission's staff shall immediately endeavor to eliminate the unfair practice by conference, conciliation, and persuasion.
If an agreement is reached for the elimination of such unfair practice as a result of such conference, conciliation, and persuasion, the agreement shall be reduced to writing and signed by the respondent, and an order shall be entered by the commission setting forth the terms of said agreement. No order shall be entered by the commission at this stage of the proceedings except upon such written agreement, except that during the period beginning with the filing of complaints alleging an unfair practice with respect to real estate transactions pursuant to RCW 49.60.222 through 49.60.225, and ending with the filing of a finding of reasonable cause or a dismissal by the commission, the commission staff shall, to the extent feasible, engage in conciliation with respect to such complaint. Any conciliation agreement arising out of conciliation efforts by the commission shall be an agreement between the respondent and the complainant and shall be subject to the approval of the commission. Each conciliation agreement shall be made public unless the complainant and respondent otherwise agree and the commission determines that disclosure is not required to further the purposes of this chapter.
If no such agreement can be reached, a finding to that effect shall be made and reduced to writing, with a copy thereof provided to the complainant and the respondent.
(4) The commission may adopt rules, including procedural time requirements, for processing complaints alleging an unfair practice with respect to real estate transactions pursuant to RCW 49.60.222 through 49.60.225 and which may be consistent with the federal fair housing amendments act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.), but which in no case shall exceed or be more restrictive than the requirements or standards of such act.
[ 2010 c 85 s 1; 1995 c 259 s 5. Prior: 1993 c 510 s 22; 1993 c 69 s 12; 1985 c 185 s 22; 1981 c 259 s 1; 1957 c 37 s 17; 1955 c 270 s 16; prior: 1949 c 183 s 8, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 7614-27, part.]
Notes:
Effective date—1995 c 259: See note following RCW 49.60.010.
Severability—1993 c 510: See note following RCW 49.60.010.
Severability—1993 c 69: See note following RCW 49.60.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1961–2024 · leading case: Loveland v. Leslie, 583 P.2d 664 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978).
Loveland v. Leslie, 583 P.2d 664 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “*88 [4] A second fundamental challenge by the Lovelands is that the hearing tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Commission's staff failed to comply with RCW 49.60.240. The statute provides that if an investigation of a complaint results in a finding of reasonable cause to…”
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009). “See Wash. Rev.Code Ann. § 49.60.240. HRC is authorized to comment on rules being considered by other agencies or state officials.”
Skold v. Johnson, 630 P.2d 456 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “2d 664 (1978), this court held that the provisions of RCW 49.60.240 [10] are jurisdictional and "require a showing that *559 the Commission conducted conciliation endeavors in good faith.”
Human Rights Comm'n v. Cheney Sch. Dist. No. 30, 641 P.2d 163 (Wash. 1982). “The only statute that speaks to this is RCW 49.60.240, which calls for investigation by the Commission staff of complaints alleging discrimination in order to determine whether reasonable cause exists for believing that an unfair practice has been committed.”
Washington Water Power Co. v. Washington State Human Rights Comm'n, 586 P.2d 1149 (Wash. 1978). “230 expressly grants to persons suffering discrimination forbidden by these sections the right to file complaints and RCW 49.60.240 mandates the commission to investigate all complaints and make findings with respect to them.”
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 571 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2009). “See Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 49.60.240 . HRC is authorized to comment on rules being considered by other agencies or state officials.”
O'Meara v. Washington State Bd. Against Discrimination, 365 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1961). “The board investigated and made a finding in favor of the Negroes (RCW 49.60.240). Upon respondents' refusal to accede to the board's finding, a tribunal was appointed (RCW 49.”
Griffin v. Eller, 922 P.2d 788 (Wash. 1996). “250 (failing conciliation, administrative law judge conducts hearing and determines whether respondent engaged in an "unfair practice”); RCW 49.60.260 (failing voluntary compliance, enforcement of Commission or administrative law judge order is by superior court in the county…”
Mattox v. Washington State Bd. Against Discrimination, 535 P.2d 470 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “RCW 49.60.240 provides that once the board has determined that there is reasonable cause to believe an unfair practice has been committed, it must attempt to eliminate the unfair practice by “conference, conciliation and persuasion.”
Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. v. Human Rights Comm'n, 692 P.2d 882 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “1 The Commission investigated the complaints and made findings pursuant to RCW 49.60.240 that *215 there was reasonable cause to believe that Mutual had committed marital status discrimination contrary to RCW 49.”
Evergreen Sch. Dist. No. 114 v. Human Rights Comm'n, 695 P.2d 999 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 49.60.240. 4 The few cases we do have easily can be distinguished.”
Lee v. Rite Aid Corp., 917 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013). “Employers who violate these laws may be investigated by the Washington State Human Rights Commission, see RCW 49.60.240, and may be sued directly by the injured employee for damages, attorney’s fees and costs.”
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.