Maloney O'Laughlin PLLC

Discrimination in the workplace based on a past pregnancy

2026-06-01T16:32:49Z

Pregnancy discrimination in the workplace is generally understood as treating a job applicant or employee unfavorably because they are pregnant. However, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination based on both current and past pregnancy. An employer may have discriminated against a job applicant or employee because of a past pregnancy if they:

Ask inappropriate interview questions

It can be unlawful for an employer to ask questions about family planning, marital status or childcare arrangements. Such questions are typically used to deny qualified candidates opportunities by creating assumptions about whether a past pregnancy will impact their availability, focus and commitment.

Demote them

When an eligible employee returns to work after a family leave, they have the right to be restored to their same or an "equivalent" position with the same pay, benefits and terms. If an employee returns to work and they are assigned to a role with different duties, reduced pay or a lesser title, they may have been discriminated against because of their past pregnancy.

Deny promotions

An employer who passes over employees with children for promotions or career growth opportunities may be acting unlawfully. You should be concerned if you are not invited to decision-making meetings or training programs you were a part of when you return from family leave.

Terminate them

Terminating an employee after delivery can be a sign of discrimination, especially if there is a close timing between the two. You should also be concerned if you are terminated shortly after returning from family leave. Being discriminated against because of a past pregnancy by an employer can significantly affect your career. If you have experienced this form of discrimination, learn more to protect your rights.

Age discrimination in Seattle tech hirings and layoffs

2026-05-19T00:16:23Z

Seattle’s tech sector is always evolving, but that fast pace often leaves older workers behind. Age bias can manifest long before a hiring decision is made and can influence who gets laid off when companies restructure. Identifying these patterns helps workers recognize when treatment crosses the line into unlawful discrimination.

How age bias shapes tech hirings

Age discrimination can begin in the recruiting stage. Job postings may use coded language such as “digital native,” “high‑energy,” or “culture fit,” which can signal a preference for younger applicants. Screening tools and automated résumé filters also disadvantage those with long work histories. During interviews, even highly experienced older applicants may face questions about adaptability, long‑term plans or comfort with new tools. These patterns can create barriers that prevent qualified workers from receiving fair consideration.

Why older workers often face layoffs

Layoffs in the tech industry frequently affect older employees at higher rates. Employers may rely on subjective criteria such as innovation, agility or future potential, which can mask age‑based assumptions. Older workers are sometimes viewed as more expensive due to salary progression, making them vulnerable in companies seeking cost reductions. When performance evaluations suddenly shift or long‑standing roles are eliminated without justification, age discrimination may have played a role.

Red flags and protecting your rights

Age bias can be subtle, but certain patterns are worth noting. Repeated comments about retirement or energy levels may signal discrimination. Exclusion from training, reduced responsibilities or sudden negative feedback can also be warning signs. Documenting conversations, saving performance reviews and tracking changes in job duties can help establish a clear timeline if concerns arise. Someone with a background in Washington employment discrimination law can offer an objective assessment of your circumstances.

Off-the-clock texts and group chats: Can that count as workplace harassment?

2026-05-15T14:52:31Z

Harassment does not always stop at the time clock. Group chats and late‑night texts can follow you home and then trail you back onto the next shift. In Washington, off‑the‑clock messages can contribute to a hostile work environment when they tie to work and target a protected trait. You can take steps that help you spot the line and respond with a plan.

When off-the-clock messages cross the line

Not every rude message creates legal risk. Watch for these signs:

Work connection: The chat involves work topics, schedules or job roles.
Unwelcome content: The messages include sexual comments, slurs or bullying.
Frequency or severity: The conduct repeats, or one incident feels extreme.
Power dynamics: A supervisor or lead pushes contact or links shifts to favors.
Impact at work: You lose hours, fear coworkers or struggle to focus on tasks.

If you see these red flags, take focused action right away.

Steps you can take right away

Practical steps can help you protect your job and health. Start with these moves:

Save evidence: Screenshot messages with names, dates and times, then back them up.
Set boundaries: Send a short note that work talk belongs on work channels during work hours.
Report in writing: Email a manager or owner if HR ignores you, and stick to facts and dates.
Adjust settings, not records: Mute or block to reduce harm, but avoid deleting messages.
Watch for pay or schedule hits: Track hours, write‑ups and shift changes after you complain.

If you take action against a hostile work environment created by inappropriate mobile interactions, Washington law generally prohibits retaliation for good‑faith reports. With a short, steady plan, you can reduce harm and build leverage. Digital conduct can shape your workplace even after you clock out. Careful records, steady boundaries and timely legal support can help you weigh next steps without risking your job.

Is reassignment during pregnancy a form of discrimination?

2026-05-13T07:00:25Z

A new role assignment during pregnancy can raise immediate questions about fairness, especially when you did not request the change.Recognizing when a reassignment becomes unlawful can help you understand what your options are when you need to file a complaint.

Protections under federal and state law

Federal law bars employers with 15 or more employees from treating you differently because of pregnancy, childbirth or related health conditions. This covers a wide range of decisions, including hiring, firing, pay and job duties. Washington state builds on these protections by treating pregnancy as a protected class for employers with eight or more workers, while specific state accommodation mandates currently apply to businesses with 15 or more. State law also requires employers to provide similar adjustments for pregnancy-related health needs, unless doing so would place an undue burden on the business.

The line between reassignment and discrimination

Now, not every reassignment counts as discrimination. Employers have the right to make staffing changes for legitimate business reasons, and a role change on its own does not cross a legal line. The real question is whether pregnancy factored into the decision. A reassignment can become unlawful when it results in lower pay, fewer duties or reduced opportunities for advancement, even if no one calls it a demotion. When those changes closely follow a pregnancy announcement and the employer cannot offer a clear, neutral explanation, the timing alone may raise serious questions.

Common red flags of retaliation

Some warning signs that retaliation may be at play include:

A sudden negative performance review shortly after you questioned the reassignment
Exclusion from meetings or projects you previously handled
Reduced hours or schedule changes that conflict with prenatal appointments
Hostile or dismissive behavior from management

Tracking these sudden shifts in your daily work environment creates the concrete timeline necessary to effectively challenge unlawful retaliation.

Your options for a formal complaint

If you believe pregnancy motivated your reassignment, you can file a discrimination charge with either of two agencies. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) handles federal claims and gives Washington residents 300 days from the alleged act to file. The Washington State Human Rights Commission investigates state-level claims but works on a shorter, six-month deadline. Both agencies have a work-sharing agreement that allows cross-filing in many situations, so filing with one does not necessarily cut off your options with the other. If you want to pursue a case in federal court, you typically need a "Notice of Right to Sue" letter from the EEOC, which you can request after 180 days from the date of your filing. Once that letter arrives, you have 90 days to submit your lawsuit.

Who can experience national origin discrimination at work?

2026-05-04T12:04:47Z

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) prohibits treating employees and job applicants unfavorably or favorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world. National origin is also a protected class under Washington Law Against Discrimination (RCW 49.60). Here are seven groups that commonly experience national discrimination in employment:

1. Individuals born outside the U.S

Some employers treat individuals born outside the U.S and those with ancestors from specific regions unfavorably.

2. Individuals with work authorization

Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for non-citizens and immigrants with work authorizations to be discriminated against by employers. For instance, those with an employer-specific visa or a permanent resident card.

3. American workers

Employers are prohibited from preferring foreign workers or visa holders to American workers. This unfair practice often occurs because of perceived lower labor costs and the belief that foreign workers are more productive.

4. Individuals from a particular ethnic group

Cases of individuals being treated unfavorably in the workplace because they belong to a specific ethnic group are frequently reported.

5. Individuals with an accent

An employer acts unlawfully when they take an adverse action against an applicant or employee solely based on their accent when the accent does not materially interfere with job duties.

6. Individuals associated with someone of a certain national origin

A worker cannot be discriminated against because they are married to or associated with a person of a particular national origin or ethnic group.

7. Individuals perceived to be of a certain ethnic background

The law prohibits discrimination against individuals because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background, even if they are not. National origin discrimination can occur in all stages of employment. It can also occur when the victim and the person engaging in the discrimination are of the same national origin. If you have experienced it, get more information to protect your career.

Why clear communication matters in autism accommodation

2026-04-16T09:45:52Z

Workplaces often rely on unspoken rules, shifting expectations and informal feedback. For many employees, those patterns may be manageable, but for others, they can create real barriers. Autistic individuals, in particular, may experience challenges when communication lacks clarity or consistency. What seems minor to one person can quickly become a significant obstacle for another.

The role of expectations, differences and misunderstandings

Clear expectations are the foundation of any successful workplace, but they are especially critical when accommodating individuals with autism. Vague instructions, changing priorities or unwritten rules can leave employees unsure of what is required, increasing stress and reducing performance. When expectations are communicated directly and concretely, employees are better positioned to succeed and meet their responsibilities. Understanding the common communication differences can also help prevent unnecessary conflict. Autistic individuals may rely less on nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, tone or eye contact and may communicate in a more direct, literal way. Some individuals may need additional time to process information before responding, while others may find long or jargon-heavy instructions difficult to follow. Directness, pauses in conversation or reduced eye contact can be misinterpreted as disengagement or rudeness when they are often simply differences in communication style. Recognizing these distinctions allows employers to respond more effectively and reduces the risk of misjudging performance or intent. Misunderstandings are often at the center of disability discrimination claims involving autism. What one party views as a lack of cooperation or engagement may actually be the result of unclear communication or unmet accommodation needs. Without open dialogue and a willingness to clarify, these situations can escalate quickly, sometimes leading to disciplinary action or termination that could have been avoided. Employers have a responsibility to engage in a good-faith process when addressing accommodation requests and communication plays a key role in that process. When communication breaks down, it can interfere with the effectiveness of accommodations and raise concerns about whether an employee’s rights are being respected. If unclear expectations or repeated misunderstandings are affecting your ability to work, it may be worth discussing your situation with a legal professional who can help you understand your options and next steps.

Can an employer deny you a promotion because of your age?

2026-04-16T08:20:21Z

If you applied for a promotion and watched it go to a younger coworker, you may be wondering whether age played a role in the decision. Whether a denied promotion qualifies as age discrimination depends on your circumstances.

Which laws protect older workers in Washington?

The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, often called the ADEA, applies to workers who are 40 or older and covers employers with 20 or more employees. It bars employers from factoring age into hiring, firing, pay or promotion decisions. The state broadens this protection with the Washington Law Against Discrimination, reaching employers with eight or more workers.

How can you tell age was the deciding factor?

Direct evidence of age bias is rare, since most employers know better than to put discriminatory reasoning in writing. Subtle signs often reveal what is happening behind a promotion decision. Comments about wanting someone with more "longevity," needing a "digital native" or hoping to bring in "new blood" can suggest age played a part. A sudden shift in performance reviews, exclusion from leadership training, or being steered away from high-visibility projects is also worth noting. Patterns can be just as telling. If younger and less experienced employees consistently advance over qualified older workers, that history may support an inference of bias.

What proof will your claim require?

To pursue an age discrimination case, you will need to demonstrate the following:

You were 40 years of age or older at the time
You were qualified for the position you applied for
You were passed over in favor of a substantially younger person, or other circumstances suggest age was the reason
The role went to a substantially younger person, or other circumstances point to age as the reason

A clear admission of bias is not required. Circumstantial evidence, when assembled carefully, can shift the burden onto your employer to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the decision.

Where do you go from here?

If you suspect age was a factor in the denial, the next step is filing a charge with the proper agency. You may file with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the discriminatory act, or pursue a complaint through Washington's civil rights enforcement process within six months. You also have the option of filing a lawsuit directly under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, without first going through the state agency. This route generally allows three years from that date to file a civil complaint in state court.

Bathroom access issues may constitute disability discrimination

2026-03-31T23:00:39Z

Disability discrimination can manifest as lost opportunities or a hostile work environment. Other times, companies may discriminate against workers by refusing to accommodate their medical needs. Accommodations should be reasonable and necessary. Some of them are truly unique, but others are consistent across many medical conditions. People with a variety of medical conditions may need prompt access to a bathroom facility. Pregnant women, workers dealing with digestive conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome, and a host of other professionals may need to access bathrooms regularly throughout the day to manage their symptoms or prevent their conditions from worsening. A lack of bathroom access can be a form of disability discrimination.

Employers should not restrict bathroom access

Federal employment standards make it clear that employers should not prevent workers from accessing bathrooms as needed throughout the workday. They should not limit employees to a certain number of visits or control how much time they spend in the bathroom. Workers should not be at risk of write-ups or other consequences if they take frequent breaks because of their medical conditions. Additionally, their employer should provide adequate facilities given the number of workers. There should also be at least one accessible bathroom stall, if not more. Accessible stalls have larger enclosed spaces, wider doors and fixtures at certain heights to make them accessible for those in wheelchairs. The failure to grant workers access to bathrooms or to provide an accessible bathroom could constitute disability discrimination. Workers facing bathroom challenges and other forms of disability discrimination may need support to understand their rights, and that’s okay. Taking legal action against a company can force an employer to adjust its policies or invest in an accessible bathroom space.

An accent shouldn’t affect a worker’s opportunities

2026-03-14T21:55:13Z

Language barriers are steadily becoming less of a workplace issue thanks to modern technology. There are now various software programs that can help translate spoken and written language, as well as photographs of signs or packaging in another language. There are also countless apps, programs, books and visual media educational options to help people learn English. In theory, it has never been easier for workers who learned English as a second language to integrate into modern workplaces. Unfortunately, employers may still mistreat them and deny them opportunities because they speak with an accent when communicating in English.

Discrimination due to accents is common

Technically, the law forbids employers from considering a worker’s national origin and immigration status when making decisions about hiring, promotions and other employment matters. When businesses consider a worker’s accent when making employment decisions, that constitutes discrimination. Even choosing to assign a different worker to specific clients due to accent sensitivity can constitute national origin discrimination. Employers should not treat workers differently because they speak English with an accent. They should not allow coworkers to mistreat, exclude or mock a worker because of how they pronounce words in English. They also should not cater to clients or customers who demand to speak with someone who doesn't have an accent. Workers denied opportunities or facing job loss because of their accents may have experienced actionable discrimination. An accent should not impact how a company treats an employee or evaluates their job performance. Gathering records of how a company has addressed a worker’s accent can help frustrated professionals evaluate their options. Workers who have faced national origin discrimination because of an accent may have a valid reason to take legal action against their employers.

Are pregnant workers in Washington facing hidden discrimination?

2026-03-09T13:13:44Z

Pregnancy discrimination is more common than most people realize. Many women find that once they announce a pregnancy or return from maternity leave, their career quietly starts to stall. It's not because their performance changed, but because of assumptions. Experts call this the maternal wall, and it may be affecting your job without you even knowing it.

What is the maternal wall?

The maternal wall is a form of bias. It happens when people at work assume that a pregnant woman or a new mother is less focused or less serious about her job. Often, no one asks how she feels — managers just make decisions for her. A manager might skip over a pregnant employee for a promotion, thinking she wouldn't want the extra work. A team might stop including a new mom in important meetings, assuming she is too busy. These actions may feel small, but over time, they can push women out of opportunities they have earned.

Your legal rights in Washington

In Washington, this treatment can cross into illegal territory. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based on sex — and that includes pregnancy. So when a job decision centers on the fact that you are pregnant or have recently given birth, federal law may be on your side. This means employers cannot legally base job decisions — such as who gets promoted or assigned to key projects — on pregnancy or childbirth.

How this shows up at work

The maternal wall is not always obvious. You might hear comments like, "Are you sure you can handle this right now?" or "We figured you would want to slow down." Other times, it is a pattern in which your employer passes you over for raises, even though your work remains excellent. If you notice a shift in how people treat you, start keeping notes. Write down dates, what people said and who was there. This documentation can matter a great deal later on.

You do not have to figure this out alone

Talking with an employment lawyer is a helpful first step. A lawyer familiar with Washington law can help you understand whether your employer violated your rights. After all, only your skills and effort should define your value at work — not your pregnancy.