Last November, I had the privilege of speaking alongside Federal and State Department of Labor and union leaders on the issue of wagetheft in Tacoma. I was asked to speak about my own experiences as a private attorney who represents low-wage workers recover unpaid wages and/or payment for denial of rest breaks.
What became clear during the discussion and the public’s Q&A afterward, is at least three common myths surrounding wagetheft still exist.
Myth: “I am afraid to complain to my boss because I will be fired.”
Answer: An employer is prohibited from discharging or discriminating against an employee for complaining to the employer or the government that his or her RCW 49.46 rights have been violated, for filing or about to file proceedings “under or related to RCW 49.46, or for giving testimony or being asked to testify in proceedings “under or related to” RCW 49.46. The Federal Labor Standards Act also prohibits retaliation for exercising wages rights.
Myth: “I can’t afford a private attorney to pursue my unpaid wages claim.”
Answer: A worker owed wages has several options. He or she may make a complaint at the Department of Labor and Industries (State/Federal), complain to their union (if applicable) or hire a private attorney. Most private attorneys, like myself are paid by the employer only in the event they recover wages for the worker. The strong Washington worker laws allow for an employee to hire a private attorney on a contingency basis.
Myth: “I am not a US Citizen, am I still entitled to wage law protection?"
Answer: The law surrounding undocumented workers is constantly changing. Washington State has made a leading effort to protect the rights of undocumented workers by preventing worker status from entering the courtroom. Second, the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit an attorney from making assertion or inquiry “about a third person’s immigration status when the lawyer’s purpose is to intimidate, coerce, or obstruct that person from participating in a civil matter.” Even the Washington State AG’s Office will not inquire as to immigration status of anyone complaining of wage theft.
 RCW 49.46.100(2)
 See: Lambert v. Ackerly, 180 F.3d 997, 1002-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc decision holding that FLSA prohibits retaliation based on informal complaints to employer); Valerio v. Putnam Assoc., 173 F.3d. 35, 45 (1st Cir. 1999).
 In Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, 168 Wn.2d 664, 230 P.3d 583, the Washington State Supreme Court held it was an abuse of discretion under ER 403 to allow a jury to learn of the Plaintiff’s immigration status in awarding lost future income. The Court wrote: