Washington Court of Appeals to consider review in Mason v. Vancouver School District over alleged secret recordings

Division 2 of the Washington Court of Appeals on April 1 heard argument on a motion for discretionary review in Stephanie Mason v. Vancouver School District, Case No. 62233‑5, a matter that centers on whether Washington’s public‑accommodation anti‑discrimination statute requires a person to have a contemporaneous subjective understanding that they were being discriminated against in order to pursue a claim.

Alex Dietz, counsel for the petitioners, told Commissioner Aurora Burse the question presented is “a pure legal issue” and argued there is “nothing in any statutory language or any prior Washington decision that establishes this requirement,” saying a contemporaneous‑awareness rule would eliminate disparate‑impact claims and undercut decades of Washington precedent that allows suits against facially neutral practices that have discriminatory effects. Dietz said the underlying factual allegations involve plaintiffs who were unaware they were being secretly video recorded in dressing rooms and bathrooms and that the related class action has been stayed because the legal question is outcome‑determinative.

Respondent counsel said the superior court’s findings were largely correct but that there are substantial grounds for disagreement on the legal question, citing an Eighth Circuit decision (Cottrell) and Title VII analysis as persuasive authority. Counsel asked the Court of Appeals to accept review to resolve the unsettled issue.

Commissioner Aurora Burse said she would take the matter under consideration and issue a written ruling as quickly as possible. No ruling was announced at the hearing.

Why it matters: The court’s decision could affect both the individual plaintiffs and a related class action and may have broader implications for how Washington courts treat claims based on facially neutral policies or practices that produce discriminatory effects. If the court adopted a contemporaneous‑awareness requirement, Dietz warned it could “vanish” disparate‑impact claims under Washington law.

Next steps: The court has taken the petition for discretionary review under advisement and will issue a written decision in due course. The related class claims remain stayed pending resolution of this legal question.

Quotes: “There is nothing in any statutory language or any prior Washington decision that establishes this requirement,” Alex Dietz told the court. “If this court’s ruling is applied, disparate‑impact claims would vanish,” he said. Respondent counsel said the certification has “substantial grounds for disagreement” and urged the court to take review, citing Cottrell and Title VII analysis.

Authorities referenced: Washington law against discrimination (public‑accommodation provision); Title VII; Cottrell (Eighth Circuit).