Opinion ID: 1452438
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: deference to agency definition

Text: The majority deferred to the interpretation of marital status adopted by the Human Rights Commission and thereby abdicated its judicial responsibility to apply and interpret the statute if necessary. Agency definitions, however, do not justify such deference when they are contrary to a statute's language, legislative history, and purpose. See Muller, 923 P.2d at 792. [I]t is ultimately for the court to determine the purpose and meaning of statutes, even when the court's interpretation is contrary to that of the agency charged with carrying out the law. Overton v. Washington State Economic Assistance Auth., 96 Wash.2d 552, 555, 637 P.2d 652 (1981). Unelected, unaccountable administrative agencies should not be allowed to rewrite statutes to achieve goals not embodied in the legislation they purport to interpret. See Boaden v. Department of Law Enforcement, 171 Ill.2d 230, 215 Ill.Dec. 664, 668, 664 N.E.2d 61, 65 (1996) (refusing to grant deference to erroneous agency definition of marital status). This is not the first time this court has considered the Human Rights Commission rules under this statute. Washington Water Power Co. v. Washington State Human Rights Comm'n, 91 Wash.2d 62, 69, 586 P.2d 1149 (1978). While I believe the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia overstated the case when it called that decision eccentric, Townshend v. Board of Educ., 183 W.Va. 418, 396 S.E.2d 185, 190 n. 4 (1990), Washington Water Power Co. is nevertheless quite distinguishable. Washington Water Power considered an employer's antinepotism policy which flatly prohibited hiring a spouse simply because of the spouse's marital status; that is to say, any spouse is ineligible for employment not because of any personal trait of either spouse but because the spouse is married to an employee. Here, however, both spouses were discharged because of the personal conduct of the husband, not as the result of a policy based on marital status. Antinepotism policies are class-based and focus on an aspect of marital status.