Introduction

The case of Laura Bennett, et al., Appellants, v. J. Michael Hardy, et al., Respondents (113 Wn. 2d 912) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Washington on January 18, 1990, marks a significant development in employment discrimination law. This case involved two former employees who alleged age discrimination and wrongful discharge by their employer, who, at the relevant times, employed fewer than eight persons. The pivotal issue was whether an implied cause of action for age discrimination existed under RCW 49.44.090, despite the employer being excluded under RCW 49.60's definition of an employer requiring at least eight employees.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Washington, en banc, reversed the Superior Court's summary judgment, which had dismissed the plaintiffs' claims on the basis that RCW 49.60 exempted employers with fewer than eight employees from age discrimination actions. The Supreme Court held that a cause of action for age discrimination is implied under RCW 49.44.090, which does not limit its application based on employer size. Additionally, the court recognized a tort claim for wrongful discharge under the public policy exception, particularly in cases of retaliatory termination. Consequently, the plaintiffs were granted the right to pursue their claims in trial.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents that shaped the court's decision:

• Grimwood v. University of Puget Sound, Inc.: Established criteria for prima facie age discrimination cases under RCW 49.60.
• Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co.: Recognized the wrongful discharge tort under the public policy exception.
• DICOMES v. STATE: Addressed public policy considerations in wrongful discharge cases.
• CORT v. ASH and In re WPPSS Sec. Litig.: Federal cases supporting the implication of a cause of action when statutes lack explicit remedies.
• Various sections of RCW 49.44.090 and RCW 49.60.040.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed a nuanced approach to statutory interpretation, emphasizing that RCW 49.44.090 implicitly grants a cause of action for age discrimination irrespective of employer size. The reasoning hinged on several legal principles:

• Implied Cause of Action: Drawing from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 874A and federal precedents, the court determined that when a statute protects a specific class without providing a remedy, the common law can fill the gap by implying a cause of action.
• Statutory Construction: The court analyzed RCW 49.44.090 in conjunction with RCW 49.60, concluding that the restrictive definition of "employer" in RCW 49.60 does not constrain RCW 49.44.090. This interpretation aligns with the broader legislative intent to combat age discrimination comprehensively.
• Public Policy Exception: For wrongful discharge claims, especially retaliatory terminations, the court invoked established public policy principles, recognizing that terminations violating public policy warrant tort claims even absent explicit statutory provisions.

Impact

This judgment significantly broadens the scope of protections against age discrimination, ensuring that employees of smaller firms are not left without recourse. By implying a cause of action under RCW 49.44.090, the court facilitates enforcement of anti-discrimination policies regardless of employer size, potentially leading to increased litigation and greater accountability among small employers. Additionally, recognizing the wrongful discharge tort under the public policy exception empowers employees to challenge retaliatory terminations, fostering fairer employment practices.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Implied Cause of Action

An implied cause of action refers to a scenario where the law does not explicitly state a right to sue, but a court recognizes such a right based on the statute's purpose and legislative intent. In this case, even though RCW 49.44.090 did not explicitly provide a remedy for age discrimination, the court inferred that such a remedy was intended to protect employees.

Public Policy Exception

The public policy exception is a legal principle that allows employees to file wrongful discharge claims when their termination violates established public policies, such as laws against age discrimination. This means that even in at-will employment scenarios, employees may have grounds to sue if their termination contravenes societal norms or legal standards.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Washington's decision in Bennett v. Hardy establishes a crucial precedent by recognizing an implied cause of action for age discrimination under RCW 49.44.090, irrespective of employer size. This ruling ensures that small employers cannot circumvent anti-discrimination protections simply by maintaining a workforce below the threshold defined in RCW 49.60. Additionally, by endorsing the wrongful discharge tort under the public policy exception, the court reinforces the legal safeguards against retaliatory employment practices. Collectively, these outcomes enhance the enforceability of anti-discrimination laws and uphold the rights of employees across diverse employment settings.