Opinion ID: 2583898
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An offset for additional federal income tax consequences is properly characterized under WLAD's provision for any other appropriate remedy.

Text: The legislature added the any other appropriate remedy clause to the WLAD in 1993. Dailey v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 129 Wash.2d 572, 575, 919 P.2d 589 (1996). Three years later, this court acknowledged the ambiguity surrounding the new provision in dicta stating: [T]he structure of the language in RCW 49.60.030(2) arguably evinces an intent to incorporate only federal remedies qualifying as costs. While the trial court read the provision as: to recover the actual damages ... together with ... any other remedy ..., we might reasonably read the term including as restrictive: the cost of suit including ... any other remedy.... Id. at 576, 919 P.2d 589. We now resolve any ambiguity by holding that the any other appropriate remedy clause stands on its own as a third WLAD remedy. The structure of RCW 49.60.030(2) supports this reading of the statute; any other' appropriate remedy relates to together with, logically providing a catchall remedy provision in addition to injunctive relief, actual damages, and cost of suit. Moreover, this reading coincides with the liberal construction WLAD requires, [8] RCW 49.60.020, in order to effectuate its purposes of deterrence and eradication of discrimination. Marquis v. City of Spokane, 130 Wash.2d 97, 109, 922 P.2d 43 (1996). Having determined that the any other appropriate remedy clause stands as a third WLAD remedy, we next assess whether this remedy entitles prevailing plaintiffs to an offset for the additional federal income tax consequences. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, addresses employment discrimination. Title VII's enforcement provision provides: If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay (payable by the employer, employment agency, or labor organization, as the case may be, responsible for the unlawful employment practice), or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. 42 U.S.C.2000e-5(g)(1) (emphasis added). The United States Supreme Court has held that the goals of Title VII are to eradicate discrimination and make persons whole for injuries suffered on account of unlawful employment discrimination. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975). A number of federal courts have used the equitable powers bestowed on them by Title VII to allow offsets for the federal tax consequences of damage awards. See Sears v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 749 F.2d 1451, 1456 (10th Cir.1984) (upholding a trial court's inclusion of tax consequences as part of a back pay award); EEOC v. Joe's Stone Crab, Inc., 15 F.Supp.2d 1364, 1380 (S.D.Fla.1998) (acknowledging the propriety of a district court ordered tax offset and noting that such offsets are a prevailing practice in the settlement of Title VII suits, but refusing to grant an offset because the plaintiff failed to submit the evidence necessary to calculate the offset amount). Because WLAD incorporates remedies authorized by the federal civil rights act and that statute has been interpreted to provide the equitable remedy of offsetting additional federal income tax consequences of damage awards, we hold that WLAD allows offsets for additional federal income tax consequences.