Opinion ID: 1381677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues of law under the apa

Text: [5] Next, the issues of law are reviewed under the APA, RCW 34.04.130(6)(d). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) definition as determined by the tribunal is a question of law, to which we apply the error of law standard. Since issues of law are the responsibility of the judicial branch to resolve, the error of law standard allows the reviewing court to essentially substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body, though substantial weight is accorded the agency's view of the law. As we said in Overton v. Economic Assistance Auth., 96 Wn.2d 552, 637 P.2d 652 (1981), at pages 554-55: Where an administrative agency is charged with administering a special field of law and endowed with quasi-judicial functions because of its expertise in that field, the agency's construction of statutory words and phrases and legislative intent should be accorded substantial weight when undergoing judicial review.... We also recognize the countervailing principle that it 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.... [B]oth history and uncontradicted authority make clear that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial branch to say what the law is. (Citations omitted.) Washington's Law Against Discrimination provides for a BFOQ exemption in RCW 49.60.180: It is an unfair practice for any employer: (1) To refuse to hire any person because of such person's ... sex ... unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification [BFOQ]. (Italics ours.) The act does not define BFOQ; however, the Human Rights Commission in WAC 162-16-020(2) defines the BFOQ exemption: (a) Where a person's ... sex ... will be essential to, or will contribute to, the accomplishment of the purposes for which the person is hired. (Italics ours.) By comparison, Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(1) (1976) provides: [I]t shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees ... on the basis of ... sex ... in those certain instances where ... sex ... is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise... (Italics ours.) [6, 7] The latter has been interpreted very narrowly in the federal courts to require an employer to establish that all or substantially all persons in the excluded class would be unable to efficiently perform the duties, Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 408 F.2d 228, 235 (5th Cir.1969), and the essence of the operation would be undermined by hiring anyone in that excluded class. Diaz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 442 F.2d 385, 388 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 950, 30 L.Ed.2d 267, 92 S.Ct. 275 (1971). Diaz states that mere preference cannot itself justify discriminatory practices in employment, it must rise to the level of a business necessity. See also Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 53 L.Ed.2d 786, 97 S.Ct. 2720 (1977). The hearing tribunal relied upon these federal cases in its determination that no BFOQ existed under Washington's Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60. We hold that such reliance was proper. The County asserts that the hearing tribunal erred in using these cases to interpret RCW 49.60 because WAC 162-16-020(2)(a) is written in the alternative, essential to, or will contribute to. This language is far broader than that permitted under the federal definition of a BFOQ. We conclude that a literal interpretation of the regulation would frustrate the purposes of RCW 49.60. The legislature has directed that the law's provisions be liberally construed in order to accomplish its purposes. RCW 49.60.020. We recognize that in promulgating WAC 162-16-020(2)(a) the Commission did not intend to impede the purposes of the Law Against Discrimination. In fact other provisions within the same chapter of the administrative code indicate that the Commission intended a narrower standard comparable to Title 7. WAC 162-16-020(2) provides: The term bona fide occupational qualification has not been defined by the legislature. Its meaning must be worked out through experience in administering the law and with reference to the general purposes of the law against discrimination and other expressions of public policy. (Italics ours.) The Commission has expressed a public policy in WAC 162-16-130: Bona fide occupational qualification. The Commission believes that the BFOQ should be applied narrowly to jobs for which a particular quality of sex, race, age, etc...., is essential to the accomplishment of the purposes of the job. Where it is necessary for the purpose of authenticity or genuineness (e.g., model, actor, actress) or maintaining conventional standards of sexual privacy (e.g., lockerroom attendant, intimate apparel fitter), the Commission will consider sex to be a BFOQ. Any other type of BFOQ should be very carefully considered. To be safe, the employer should request a BFOQ ruling from the Washington State Human Rights Commission and cite the ruling in the employment advertisement. Anytime that an employment advertisement or notice expresses a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on sex, marital status, race, color, creed, age, national origin, or the presence of any physical, sensory, or mental handicaps, the burden shall be on the employer to prove that the expression is justified by a BFOQ. In the absence of proof, the advertisement will be considered an unfair practice under the law. (For further guidance on the meaning of BFOQ, see WAC 162-16-020.) In addition, WAC 162-30-010 provides: In the interest of consistency and to avoid confusion on the part of persons governed by both the state and federal sex discrimination laws, the commission will generally follow interpretations of the sex discrimination provisions of Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC § 2000e and following, where the federal act is comparable to the state act. Accordingly, because a literal interpretation of WAC 162-16-020(2) would frustrate the purposes of our law and other regulations indicate the comparable nature of a BFOQ under RCW 49.60 and Title 7 the hearing tribunal was correct in using Weeks and Diaz to interpret its regulation. The Court of Appeals, however, held that Weeks and Diaz were factually distinguishable and could not be relied upon because they involved restrictions limiting a job category to one sex or another exclusively whereas the instant case involves an attempt to achieve a female-male balance. We conclude for the following reasons that the factual distinctions are not relevant herein. [8] RCW 49.60.180(1) prohibits an employer from refus[ing] to hire any person because of such person's ... sex ... unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification ... The County's decision to achieve a sexual balance by providing a male counselor and female counselor resulted in the County refusing to hire Sellers because of her sex. As such, the action was prohibited by the statute unless it was based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. We conclude that a decision to sexually balance the work force is subject to the BFOQ analysis of Weeks and Diaz. Accordingly, the inquiry is (1) under Weeks, whether all or substantially all 2-women counseling teams would be unable to perform their required function; or (2) under Diaz, whether the essential function of the program would be undermined if 2-women teams were utilized. [2] In sum, we conclude that the hearing tribunal applied the correct standard in determining that a BFOQ did not exist.