Select Page

Understanding At-Will Employment in Washington and Oregon

by | Sep 9, 2025 | Blogs By Trevor J. Cartales, Employment Law

Employer and employee shaking hands across a desk, symbolizing at-will employment and workplace agreements in Washington and Oregon.
In both Washington and Oregon, most employment relationships are governed by the at-will doctrine—meaning either the employer or employee can end the employment at any time, for any legal reason (or no reason at all), without notice. The important catch is that termination may be made for any legal reason. Neither state allows employers to terminate employees for illegal motives such as discrimination or retaliation for engaging in protected activity.

Washington: At-Will and its Exceptions

Discrimination Protections

Discrimination is an explicit exception to the at will doctrine. Employers cannot terminate, demote, or otherwise penalize employees based on protected traits such as race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, religion, disability, age, marital status, etc. Even though an employer can terminate someone within these protected classes for no reason, if the employee can prove that the actual reason was discriminatory, the employer will be liable for wrongful termination.

Retaliation Safeguards

In Washington, it is also unlawful for employers to retaliate against employees for exercising protected rights—such as complaining about violations of minimum wage, paid sick leave, safety issues, workers’ compensation claims, discrimination described above, sexual harassment, other protected leave, or discussing wage equity. Retaliatory actions can include firing, demotion, schedule reductions, pay cuts, or disciplinary measures.

Public Policy Exception

Washington also recognizes an important public policy exception to at-will employment. A prime example: in Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931, 913 P.2d 377 (1996), an employee who broke company policy to save a woman from attack was wrongfully terminated. The court held his firing violated a fundamental public value, invoking what’s known as the Perritt test for such “public policy” discharge claims. The Perritt test identifies four requirements:

(1) A plaintiff must prove the existence of a clear public policy;
(2) A plaintiff must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged would jeopardize the public policy;
(3) A plaintiff must prove that the public-policy-linked conduct caused the dismissal; and
(4) The defendant must not be able to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal.

Contractual & Implied Limitations

Even in at-will states like Washington, explicit employment contracts can provide legal grounds for breach of contract when no cause of action would otherwise exist. Even implied contracts may emerge from employer practices or policy manuals that create employment expectations.

Oregon: At-Will and its Exceptions

At-Will Framework

Oregon, like Washington, is an at-will state—allowing dismissals without cause or notice under general circumstances. However, termination for discriminatory reasons remains unlawful.

Inclusive Discrimination Laws

Oregon has also codified its antidiscrimination laws, particularly within ORS chapter 659A. Among the strongest in the nation, these laws prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or age. The statute also prohibits discrimination or retaliation based on disability, pregnancy, and engaging in protected activity such as taking protected leave, reporting employer misconduct, and other employee rights.

Public Policy Exception

Oregon, like Washington, also provides protection for termination for reasons that go against a fundamental public policy of the state, such as refusing to do something illegal, performing a public duty like jury service, or whistleblowing on illegal conduct. Common examples include fulfilling a public duty, such as serving on a jury or refusing to engage in illegal activity at the behest of their employer.

Contractual & Implied Limitations

Again, even in at-will states, the parties may enter into employment contracts that provide legal grounds for breach of contract with or without traditional “wrongful termination” claims. Similarly, implied contracts may provide expanded employee protections.

Federal Enforcement

Employers in both states remain subject to robust federal anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws, particularly through Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Equal Pay Act, and others—all enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Alternatively, plaintiffs can file complaints with their state enforcement agencies in Oregon and Washington: the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and the Washington State Human Rights Commission, respectively. Such filings will be considered dual-filed with the EEOC for procedural purposes). These agencies provide investigative, mediation, and legal processes for workplace disputes.

Preserving federal claims requires filing with the applicable agency within a very short time frame. Failure to do so may cut off certain claims and damages. Unfortunately, these agencies often decline to find discrimination, in which case they will issue 90-day “right to sue” notices, allowing plaintiffs to pursue claims via private litigation.

Practical Tips for Employees

At-will doctrine is not an excuse for discrimination.

Neither Washington nor Oregon allows employers to terminate employees for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons.

State protections strengthen federal law.

Oregon and Washington’s statutes exist in addition to federal law. Employees may sue under state law even without federal claims, creating a robust local enforcement scheme.

Public policy and contract exceptions matter.

Cases like Gardner in Washington show narrow but meaningful limits on at-will termination.

Reasons for termination.

Employers generally know better than to document unlawful reasons for termination, leading some HR departments with strict instructions to not provide a reason at all. If you are terminated, ask for a reason. If possible, get the reason in writing.

Bad employers are not necessarily unlawful employers.

Toxic workplaces, poor management, and even volatile relationships with supervisors does not necessarily create employment claims. However, if an employee is mistreated for being in a protected class or engaging in a protected activity, the employer may be liable.

Preserve evidence.

It’s not enough to simply allege wrongful conduct. A successful employment claim requires proof, often in the form of documented communication with HR. Employee communications with supervisors or HR about taking leave, reporting misconduct or safety incidents, or asserting any other right should be done in writing. If written communication is not possible, the employee should take contemporaneous notes and follow up with an email summarizing the conversation. Remember: your employer may restrict access to company email systems at any time, so be sure to save any important communications.

Our Employment Attorneys Licensed in Washington and Oregon Can Help You!

In Washington and Oregon, at-will employment is the rule—but critical legal boundaries exist. Discrimination and retaliation are unlawful, whether under federal mandates or state-specific employment statutes. Additionally, contracted terms of employment and even quasi-contract rights may allow an employee to sue even if no discriminatory termination exists.

Employees who feel they have been wrongfully terminated or retaliated against should gather evidence, understand both state and federal mechanisms of enforcement, and consider consulting employment law professionals promptly. Because of short statutes of limitations and reporting periods, time is of the essence. Employers, too, benefit from clear policies, consistent documentation, and awareness that at-will is not absolute.

Learn More About Trevor
Employment Law Service

Our Employment Law Attorney 

Trevor J. Cartales

Trevor J. Cartales

Attorney/Co-Owner

Colt J. Warrington

Colt J. Warrington

Senior Attorney

Disclaimer

Every legal issue is very unique. Accordingly, the information in this blog is intended as general education material and not as legal advice. If you think you may have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.