Opinion ID: 1381677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: county's appeal

Text: The County contends that the formation and actions of the tribunal violated constitutional and statutory provisions. The trial court concluded that no such violations existed. The majority of the Court of Appeals did not address the issues. We affirm the trial court. [11] The County argues that the separation of powers doctrine has been violated because this case involves a dispute between individuals which should be decided by a court rather than an administrative agency. This argument is without merit. We have clearly decided that legislatively created agencies may constitutionally act in a quasi-judicial capacity. Asarco Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 696, 601 P.2d 501 (1979). In addition, the delegation of adjudicative powers to the Human Rights Commission was expressly upheld in Rody v. Hollis, 81 Wn.2d 88, 500 P.2d 97 (1972). [12] The County also contends that the procedures followed by the Commission, i.e., the Human Rights Commission investigates the claim and also appoints a tribunal to adjudicate the claim, violates due process. RCW 49.60 and the Commission's rules contained in WAC 162-04 and 162-08 establish a tribunal composed of persons who had no part in the earlier stages of the case. We have previously upheld the legality of these procedures in Rody. [3] The County's primary contention appears to be that it was denied a fair hearing. In this regard it argues that the interrelationship between WAC 162-08-278(7), concerning the law the tribunal shall apply, and WAC 162-08-211(6), concerning the law each tribunal member agrees to apply, causes the tribunal members to be committed only to the Commission and its view of the law therefore denying parties like itself a fair trial. WAC 162-08-211(6) requires each tribunal member to execute an Acceptance of Appointment form, stating: I accept appointment as a member of the hearing tribunal which will hear the case captioned above for the Washington State Human Rights Commission. I certify that, to my knowledge, I have no conflicts of interest which would interfere with my ability to judge fairly and impartially. I promise to judge this case with fairness and impartiality to all parties and persons. I agree with the purposes of the law against discrimination and I will follow and apply the law against discrimination and the regulations, declaratory rulings, and other formal interpretations of the law against discrimination made by vote of the commissioners. I am willing to devote the time necessary to fully hear the case and decide it with reasonable promptness. Dated __________________________ ________________________________ (Signature) [13] The County implies that this agreement limits the tribunal's consideration of relevant law. As illustrated by the written opinion of the hearing tribunal in the instant case, citing numerous federal decisions, no such limitation exists. The above agreement includes a promise to apply Commission regulations. These regulations include WAC 162-08-278(7): In determining whether unfair practices have been committed, the hearing tribunal shall apply the law as it is written in chapter 49.60 RCW and as it has been interpreted by final decisions of appellate courts and by the Washington State Human Rights Commission in regulations, declaratory rulings, and other formal interpretations made by vote of the commissioners. Court decisions interpreting statutes other than chapter 49.60 RCW, rulings of other hearing tribunals, interpretations of law by the commission's staff or legal counsel, and arguments of legal counsel for the commission or other parties shall be given whatever persuasive weight they possess, in the judgment of the tribunal. The County also implies that WAC 162-08-211(6) allows the tribunal to ignore constitutional guaranties. As previously addressed, due process rights are emphasized and ensured by the Commission procedures. The failure to include a declaration of support for federal and state constitutions, as apparently sought by the County, does not violate the guaranty of a fair hearing, especially since the tribunal, as an administrative agency, has no authority to determine the constitutionality of the law it administers. Bare v. Gorton, 84 Wn.2d 380, 526 P.2d 379 (1974). The guaranty of a fair hearing does not prohibit partiality toward an issue of law or a policy. A prejudgment or point of view about a question of law or policy, even if so tenaciously held as to suggest a closed mind, is not, without more, a disqualification. 3 K. Davis, Administrative Law § 19:1, at 371 (2d ed. 1980). In explaining his reason for not disqualifying himself from a specific case based upon his prior position on a similar issue while he worked for the Department of Justice, Justice Rehnquist stated in Laird v. Tatum, 409 U.S. 824, 834-35, 34 L.Ed.2d 50, 93 S.Ct. 7 (1972): MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS' statement about federal district judges in his dissenting opinion in Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74, 137 [26 L.Ed.2d 100, 90 S.Ct. 1648] (1970), strikes me as being equally true of the Justices of this Court: Judges are not fungible; they cover the constitutional spectrum; and a particular judge's emphasis may make a world of difference when it comes to rulings on evidence, the temper of the courtroom, the tolerance for the proffered defense, and the like. Lawyers recognize this when they talk about `shopping' for a judge; Senators recognize this when they are asked to give their `advice and consent' to judicial appointments; laymen recognize this when they appraise the quality and image of the judiciary in their own community. Since most Justices come to this bench no earlier than their middle years, it would be unusual if they had not by that time formulated at least some tentative notions that would influence them in their interpretation of the sweeping clauses of the Constitution and their interaction with one another. It would be not merely unusual, but extraordinary, if they had not at least given opinions as to constitutional issues in their previous legal careers. Proof that a Justice's mind at the time he joined the Court was a complete tabula rasa in the area of constitutional adjudication would be evidence of lack of qualification, not lack of bias. Similarly, in this case, a willingness to apply the Law Against Discrimination, and a promise to be fair and impartial to all parties and persons did not violate the County's right to a fair hearing. See also Skold v. Johnson, 29 Wn. App. 541, 630 P.2d 456 (1981). [14] Another assertion made by the County is that Sellers' claim is fatally deficient in that she did not make formal application for the job. We disagree. It is hornbook law that the law does not require a useless act. The evidence is not disputed that Sellers called and was told that only men were being considered for the job. The Sheriff himself confirmed this by letter to the Human Rights Commission shortly thereafter. The Sheriff testified that although he preferred a man he might have hired Sellers if no equally qualified man was available. At the time of the incident at issue, Sellers had a bachelor's degree in sociology and psychology and was close to completing a master's program in guidance and counseling. She had many years of teaching and counseling experience, including work with migrant workers in the Pasco area and some teaching experience with work release inmates. In fact, the Sheriff testified that he had not expected to attract anyone of Sellers' qualifications to apply for the position. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 36 L.Ed.2d 668, 93 S.Ct. 1817 (1973) sets out the four requirements of a prima facie case of discrimination: (1) plaintiff is a member of a suspect, or protected class, (2) plaintiff applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants, (3) that despite plaintiff's qualifications s/he was rejected, (4) that after rejecting plaintiff, the job remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants with plaintiff's same basic qualifications. As stated in WAC 162-30-010, the state law on discrimination will be interpreted by reference to the federal law when not in conflict. See Lindsay v. Seattle, 86 Wn.2d 698, 548 P.2d 320 (1976); Fahn v. Cowlitz Cy., 93 Wn.2d 368, 610 P.2d 857 (1980); Rose v. Hanna Mining Co., 94 Wn.2d 307, 616 P.2d 1229 (1980). Although we accept McDonnell Douglas as good law, technical compliance with element (2) would defeat the purpose of RCW 49.60, which is to be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose to prohibit unlawful discrimination. [W]here an employer's acts deter [plaintiff] from applying, strict adherence to the `application' requirement is not mandated. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n v. Woodbury Cy. Comm'ty Action Agency, 304 N.W.2d 443, 451 (Iowa Ct. App. 1981), citing State Comm'n for Human Rights v. Yellow Cab, 611 P.2d 487, at 491 (Alaska 1980). See also Arnett v. Seattle Gen. Hosp., 65 Wn.2d 22, 395 P.2d 503 (1964). We reverse the Court of Appeals and uphold the trial court's affirmance of the findings, conclusions and damages awarded by the tribunal. BRACHTENBACH, C.J., and ROSELLINI, STAFFORD, UTTER, DOLLIVER, WILLIAMS, and DORE, JJ., concur. Reconsideration denied June 29, 1982.