No Laughing Matter: Company Found Liable for Wrongfully Terminating Independent Contractor’s Agreement after a Complaint about a Discriminatory Joke Made by Another Independent Contactor


Companies using independent contractors should be aware of increased enforcement efforts from federal and state labor and tax authorities over misclassification of workers under wage and hour and tax laws. In Washington, this threat now includes discrimination claims brought by independent contractors, even though many state and federal employment discrimination statutes apply only to “employees.” As the recent Washington Court of Appeals decision illustrates, the non-employee status of a worker does not necessarily protect companies from discrimination-based claims arising out of the independent-contractor/principle relationship.

In Currier v. Northland Services, Inc., No. 70128-2-1 (Wash. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2014), the Washington Court of Appeals considered whether the anti-retaliatory provisions of the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”), chapter 49.60 RCW, protect independent contractors who oppose discriminatory practices of the contracting principle. Currier, a contract truck driver for Northland Services Inc. (“NSI”), reported to an NSI employee racially discriminatory comment directed at a Latino driver by another contractor driver. NSI terminated Currier’s contract two days later, and Currier sued NSI for retaliatory discharge.

NSI argued that Currier’s complaint fell outside the scope of the employment discrimination statute because (a) Currier was not an “employee” of the company, and (b) Currier did not oppose a specific employment practice of his employer but rather complained about the racially derogatory statement of another independent contractor. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s decision holding that independent contractors may bring an action for discrimination under WLAD. The Court further held that Currier’s complaint about the treatment of others was a statutorily protected activity, and that the timing of the termination decision and other circumstantial evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that there was a causal link between Currier’s complaint and contract termination.

As the Court itself pointedly noted, the Currier decision does not imply that employer is automatically liable for all discriminatory conduct or statements of its independent contractors. Rather, this case demonstrates that employer’s own discriminatory conduct (in this instance, retaliatory discharge) may result in liability irrespective of the status of the worker towards whom such conduct in directed. In other words, independent contractor status of the claimant is not a shield from employment discrimination suits under Washington law.

The practical implication for employers is therefore clear: it is in an employer’s best interest to comply with anti-discrimination laws in the treatment of its entire workforce.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dorsey & Whitney LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Dorsey & Whitney LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.