Floeting v. Grp. Health Coop.
434 P.3d 39, 192 Wash.2d 848 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Washington's Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), an employer is strictly and directly liable for the discriminatory acts of its employees toward customers in a place of public accommodation, regardless of whether the employer knew or should have known of the employee's conduct.
Facts:
- Christopher Floeting was a member and patient of Group Health Cooperative, a nonprofit health care system, for over 35 years.
- Group Health is a place of public accommodation under Washington law.
- Beginning in July 2012, a Group Health employee repeatedly sexually harassed Floeting during his regularly scheduled medical appointments.
- Floeting filed a complaint with Group Health regarding the employee's conduct.
- Following an investigation into Floeting's complaint, Group Health terminated the employee two weeks later.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher Floeting sued Group Health Cooperative in a state trial court for discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).
- The trial court granted Group Health's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Floeting's claim.
- Floeting, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Washington Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision.
- Group Health, as petitioner, was granted review by the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Washington's Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) impose direct liability on an employer when its employee sexually harasses a customer in a place of public accommodation, regardless of the employer's knowledge of the conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - González, J.
Yes, the WLAD imposes direct liability on an employer for an employee's discriminatory acts in a place of public accommodation. The plain language of RCW 49.60.215 makes it an unfair practice for "any person or the person's agent or employee" to commit a discriminatory act, which the court interprets as imposing direct liability on the employer. This statutory language is distinct from the WLAD's employment discrimination provision (RCW 49.60.180), which only makes it an unfair practice for an "employer" to discriminate and has been interpreted to require that the harassment be imputable to the employer. The court rejects the argument that the standard for workplace harassment from Glasgow v. Ga.-Pac. Corp. should be imported into the public accommodations context, as the statutes are textually different and serve different purposes. The public accommodation law protects a customer's "full enjoyment" of services, and grafting the employer-knowledge requirement from employment law would undermine the legislature's clear intent to eradicate discrimination in such places. This interpretation results in strict liability, meaning an employer is liable for the harm caused by its employee's discriminatory act, even if the employer was not negligent or at fault.
Dissenting - Madsen, J.
No, the court should apply the same standard used for workplace harassment, which requires showing that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take corrective action. The majority's holding imposes a strict liability standard that is not justified by the statutory language and creates an illogical double standard, affording customers greater protection from employee misconduct than fellow employees. The dissent argues that the language "any person or the person's agent or employee" is meant to broaden who can be held liable for their own actions, not to automatically impute liability to an employer without fault. Courts should not impose strict liability unless the legislature's intent to do so is unmistakably clear, which it is not here. Holding an employer strictly liable when it had no knowledge of the conduct and no opportunity to rectify it is an unreasonable and draconian result that does little to achieve the goal of eradicating discrimination.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear, bright-line rule of strict liability for employers in public accommodation discrimination cases under Washington's WLAD. By explicitly rejecting the employment law standard that requires employer knowledge, the court creates a higher standard of care for businesses serving the public in Washington than what exists under federal law or in the employment context. This ruling makes it significantly easier for plaintiffs to hold businesses accountable for the discriminatory actions of their employees. Consequently, businesses must now focus more on preventative measures, such as robust training and supervision, as the defense of not knowing about an employee's misconduct is no longer available in this context.
