Washington Workplace Harassment Laws: 8-Employee Rule (2026)

Workplace harassment based on a protected trait is unlawful in Washington under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), which makes it an unfair practice for an employer "To discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment" because of a listed trait (RCW 49.60.180(3)). The WLAD's definition of employer covers employers of "eight or more persons," and it excludes religious or sectarian organizations not organized for private profit (RCW 49.60.040(11)).

The WLAD has no clause that names harassment as an unfair practice for employers in general. The hostile-environment test comes from the Washington Supreme Court, which requires harassment "sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment" (Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific, 1985). The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) takes complaints, and a person can also sue in court. For other states, see workplace harassment laws by state.

Information last verified on 2026-10-20. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Washington state law on workplace harassment by employers, supervisors and coworkers under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW (chiefly RCW 49.60.030, .040, .180, .210, .220, .230 and .515), with the nondisclosure rule in RCW 49.44.211 and the long-term care rules in chapter 49.95 RCW. It does not cover wrongful firing or the full complaint and lawsuit procedure (see Washington wrongful termination), damages estimates, criminal harassment or stalking, civil protection orders, harassment outside employment, local ordinances, or federal-employee procedure.

Washington harassment rules at a glance

What Washington law prohibits

Chapter 49.60 does not contain an unfair practice that names harassment in general. The word appears in RCW 49.60.515, the isolated-employee section discussed below, and in a cross-reference to the criminal malicious harassment statute. Workplace harassment claims rest instead on RCW 49.60.180(3), which makes it an unfair practice for an employer:

"To discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, 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" (RCW 49.60.180(3))

The hostile-environment test

The elements come from Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401 (1985), a sexual harassment case. The Washington Supreme Court listed four: the harassment was unwelcome, it was because of sex, it affected the terms or conditions of employment, and it can be imputed to the employer. On the third element the court wrote:

"The harassment affected the terms or conditions of employment. Casual, isolated or trivial manifestations of a discriminatory environment do not affect the terms or conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate the law. The harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment." (Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401 (1985))

The WSHRC's 2025 sexual harassment brochure phrases the test differently: "A Hostile Work Environment results from Severe or Pervasive Harassment; a Reasonable Person would not be able to work in this environment due to the harassment." That is the agency's description, not statutory text. Whether particular conduct meets the test depends on the facts the commission or a court weighs.

Sexual orientation and gender identity harassment

A WSHRC rule addresses this form of harassment directly. WAC 162-32-040(1) provides that "Harassment based on an individual's sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity is prohibited," and describes it in employment as "offensive and unwelcome behavior serious enough to affect the terms and conditions of employment and which occurred because of an individual's sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity, and can be imputed to the employer."

Which Washington employers are covered

Under RCW 49.60.040(11), "Employer" includes "any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, who employs eight or more persons, and does not include any religious or sectarian organization not organized for private profit." The WSHRC's brochure says the same from the agency's side: "The WSHRC has no jurisdiction over employers with fewer than 8 employees."

The definition of employee has its own exclusions. Under RCW 49.60.040(10), "Employee" does not include "any individual employed by his or her parents, spouse, or child, or in the domestic service of any person." Domestic workers gain new protections in 2027 (see below).

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reaches employers with "fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks," so a Washington employer with eight to fourteen employees is covered by the WLAD but below Title VII's line; the federal layer is on the workplace harassment laws hub.

Protected traits under the WLAD

RCW 49.60.180(3) lists:

• age;
• sex, which "means gender" (RCW 49.60.040(28));
• marital status;
• sexual orientation, defined as "heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity" (RCW 49.60.040(29));
• race, which "is inclusive of traits historically associated or perceived to be associated with race including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles" (RCW 49.60.040(21));
• creed, color and national origin;
• citizenship or immigration status;
• honorably discharged veteran or military status;
• 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 the employer responsible? Can an individual be sued?

Employer responsibility

Under Glasgow, the fourth element is that the harassment can be imputed to the employer. The court described two routes: an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally participated in the harassment, or, for harassment by a supervisor or coworker, the employer "authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment" and "failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action." The WSHRC's brochure states that employers "must investigate complaints and take prompt and remedial action to stop the harassment, even when done by a non-employee." WAC 162-32-040 uses the same "imputed to the employer" language for sexual orientation and gender identity harassment.

Supervisors and other individuals

In Brown v. Scott Paper Worldwide Co., 143 Wn.2d 349 (2001), the Washington Supreme Court held: "Under the language of chapter 49.60 RCW, we hold supervisors, along with their employers, can be held liable for their discriminatory acts." The WLAD's definition of employer includes "any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly" (RCW 49.60.040(11)), and "Person" includes "any owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, agent, or employee" (RCW 49.60.040(19)).

Separately, RCW 49.60.220 makes it "an unfair practice for any person to aid, abet, encourage, or incite the commission of any unfair practice, or to attempt to obstruct or prevent any other person from complying with the provisions of this chapter or any order issued thereunder."

Retaliation for complaining

RCW 49.60.210(1) makes it "an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by this chapter, or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter." Firings after a complaint, and how they fit with the state's default employment rule, are covered on the Washington at-will employment page.

Deadlines and where to file

• Human Rights Commission: a complaint "must be filed within six months after the alleged act of discrimination," except that pregnancy discrimination complaints under RCW 49.60.180 "must be filed within one year after the alleged unfair practice" and whistleblower retaliation complaints "must be filed within two years" (RCW 49.60.230(2)). The period is six months, not a count of days.
• Court: "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" (RCW 49.60.030(2)). The WLAD does not require a commission complaint first.
• Court deadline: the WLAD sets none of its own. The Washington Supreme Court stated in Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d 256 (2004): "Discrimination claims must be brought within three years under the general three year statute of limitations for personal injury actions," which is RCW 4.16.080(2). In the same case the court adopted, for Washington hostile-environment claims, the federal rule that "[p]rovided that an act contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period, the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered by a court for the purposes of determining liability."
• Federal charge: the EEOC's Seattle field office lists the Washington State Human Rights Commission as a fair employment practices agency, and states that the 180-day filing deadline "is extended to 300 days if there is a state or local anti-discrimination law that covers the location of the alleged harm and the basis for the charge." That federal period is separate from the commission's own six-month deadline.

The steps between filing and a decision, and the remedies available, are on the Washington wrongful termination page. The Washington employment discrimination settlement calculator is an estimating tool, not a prediction of any outcome.

Training and written policies

Isolated employees in hotels, retail, security and janitorial work

Washington's private-sector training mandate is targeted. RCW 49.60.515(1) provides that "Every hotel, motel, retail, or security guard entity, or property services contractor, who employs an isolated employee, must: (a) Adopt a sexual harassment policy; (b) Provide mandatory training to the employer's managers, supervisors, and isolated employees to: (i) Prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace," among other duties the section lists. An isolated employee, as that section defines it, is a janitor, security guard, hotel or motel housekeeper or room service attendant who works in isolation, and for this section an employer with one or more employees is covered.

The Department of Labor and Industries' rule sets the timing: employers must "Provide training before an isolated employee works in isolation and at least annually to the employer's managers, supervisors, and isolated employees" (WAC 296-137-030(1)). Amendments under 2025 c 47 took effect January 1, 2026, and the current rule took effect January 16, 2026.

Other employers

• Long-term care: chapter 49.95 RCW requires consumer directed employers and home care agencies to keep a written policy on discrimination, abusive conduct and challenging behavior. Its definition of "discriminatory harassment," conduct "enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive" (RCW 49.95.010(8)), applies to that chapter only.
• State employees: under RCW 41.06.395, "The director shall adopt rules establishing guidelines for policies, procedures, and mandatory training programs on sexual harassment for state employees to be adopted by state agencies."

None of these provisions (RCW 49.60.515, chapter 49.95 RCW, RCW 41.06.395 and RCW 43.01.135, the state-agency policy section) imposes a general harassment-training duty on private employers. The WSHRC brochure says that best employment practices include training.

NDAs, confidentiality and settlements

RCW 49.44.211, in effect since June 9, 2022, reaches conduct beyond harassment:

"A provision in an agreement by an employer and an employee not to disclose or discuss conduct, or the existence of a settlement involving conduct, that the employee reasonably believed under Washington state, federal, or common law to be illegal discrimination, illegal harassment, illegal retaliation, a wage and hour violation, or sexual assault, or that is recognized as against a clear mandate of public policy, is void and unenforceable." (RCW 49.44.211(1))

The rule covers nondisparagement as well as nondisclosure provisions, including those in "employment agreements, independent contractor agreements, agreements to pay compensation in exchange for the release of a legal claim, or any other agreement between an employer and an employee." It is also a violation for an employer "to request or require that an employee enter into any agreement provision that is prohibited by this section" (subsection (4)).

Several limits matter. The section "does not prohibit an employer and an employee from protecting trade secrets, proprietary information, or confidential information that does not involve illegal acts" (subsection (6)). For agreements created before June 9, 2022, it voids only provisions "agreed to at the outset of employment or during the course of employment," and it "does not apply to a nondisclosure or nondisparagement provision contained in an agreement to settle a legal claim" (subsection (11)). The section "does not prohibit the enforcement of a provision in any agreement that prohibits the disclosure of the amount paid in settlement of a claim" (subsection (2)). And an employer that violates it "after June 9, 2022, is liable in a civil cause of action for actual or statutory damages of $10,000, whichever is more, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs" (subsection (7)).

Federal law adds limits for sexual harassment disputes: the Speak Out Act makes nondisclosure and nondisparagement clauses agreed to before a sexual harassment dispute arises judicially unenforceable where the conduct is alleged to violate federal, tribal or state law, and the Ending Forced Arbitration Act lets the person alleging sexual harassment elect court over a predispute arbitration agreement; both are explained on the workplace harassment laws hub.

Is workplace bullying illegal in Washington?

The WLAD reaches harassment because of a protected trait. Its employment provisions contain no rule on general workplace bullying unconnected to one of those traits. The abusive-conduct policy duty in chapter 49.95 RCW applies to long-term care employers only.

Documenting harassment and workplace monitoring

The rules on recording a conversation at work, including a conversation with a harasser, are on the Washington workplace recording laws page. Employer monitoring of email, devices and workspaces is covered on the Washington employee monitoring laws page.

Recent and upcoming changes

• June 9, 2022: RCW 49.44.211 (2022 c 133) took effect, voiding nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions on conduct reasonably believed to be illegal (for agreements made before that date, only provisions agreed to at the outset or during employment, not settlement agreements).
• January 1, 2026: 2025 c 47 amended the isolated-employee rules in RCW 49.60.515; the Labor and Industries rule in chapter 296-137 WAC took effect January 16, 2026.
• July 1, 2027: under 2026 c 15, new RCW 49.96.050 provides that "A hiring entity may not: (a) Subject a domestic worker to conduct or allow a domestic worker to be subjected to conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment with the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the domestic worker's performance." It will be enforced by Labor and Industries under chapter 49.96. New RCW 49.60.212 gives domestic workers not already covered by RCW 49.60.180 a WLAD claim, which is brought in court rather than through the commission. Neither section is in force until that date.

Related pages

• Workplace harassment laws by state
• Washington wrongful termination
• Washington at-will employment laws
• Washington employee monitoring laws
• Washington workplace recording laws

This article provides general legal information about Washington workplace harassment law under chapter 49.60 RCW and related statutes as of 2026-10-20. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in Washington or the Washington State Human Rights Commission.

Last updated: 2026-10-20.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is workplace harassment illegal in Washington State?

Harassment because of a protected trait is unlawful under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, which bars an employer from discriminating in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment because of that trait (RCW 49.60.180(3)). The court-made test asks whether the harassment was sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment (Glasgow, 1985).

How many employees does an employer need for Washington harassment law to apply?

The WLAD covers employers of eight or more persons and excludes religious or sectarian organizations not organized for private profit (RCW 49.60.040(11)). Separate isolated-employee duties under RCW 49.60.515 apply to covered hotel, motel, retail, security guard and property services employers with one or more employees.

How long do you have to file a harassment complaint in Washington?

A complaint with the Human Rights Commission must be filed within six months after the alleged act, or one year for pregnancy discrimination and two years for whistleblower retaliation (RCW 49.60.230(2)). A lawsuit needs no commission filing first and must be brought within three years (RCW 4.16.080(2); Antonius v. King County). Under Antonius, a hostile-environment claim can reach the whole period of the environment if an act contributing to it falls within the filing period.

Can a supervisor be personally liable for harassment in Washington?

Yes. In Brown v. Scott Paper Worldwide Co. (2001), the Washington Supreme Court held that supervisors, along with their employers, can be held liable for their discriminatory acts under chapter 49.60 RCW.

Does Washington require sexual harassment training?

Only for some employers. Hotels, motels, retailers, security guard entities and property services contractors that employ an isolated employee must train managers, supervisors and isolated employees before isolated work and at least annually (RCW 49.60.515; WAC 296-137-030). State agencies follow rules under RCW 41.06.395.

Are NDAs about workplace harassment enforceable in Washington?

A provision not to disclose or discuss conduct, or the existence of a settlement involving conduct, that the employee reasonably believed to be illegal harassment, discrimination, retaliation, a wage and hour violation or sexual assault is void (RCW 49.44.211(1)). The rule covers nondisparagement provisions too. A clause keeping the settlement amount confidential can still be enforced, employers may still protect trade secrets and confidential information that does not involve illegal acts, and provisions in settlement agreements made before June 9, 2022 are not reached (RCW 49.44.211(2), (6), (11)).

Are domestic workers protected from harassment in Washington?

The WLAD's definition of employee currently excludes individuals in the domestic service of any person (RCW 49.60.040(10)). From July 1, 2027, RCW 49.96.050 bars a hiring entity from subjecting a domestic worker to an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Is workplace bullying illegal in Washington?

The WLAD reaches harassment tied to a protected trait and contains no rule on general workplace bullying. Chapter 49.95 RCW requires an abusive-conduct policy only for long-term care employers.