An MPA essay written for a policy analysis course at the University of Washington to shine light on labor conditions and abuses of domestic workers--and policy recommendations for possible solutions.

1. Domestic Workers:
Human Rights Abuses and
Discrimination in the Workforce
Marissa Beach

2. To: Commissioners of Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC)
Cc: Washington State Labor and Industries (L&I)
From: Marissa Beach, Junior Policy Analyst and Human Rights Activist
Date: December 10, 2008
Re: Policy recommendations for workforce discrimination of immigrant domestic workers
Executive Summary
In this memo, I provide a context for policy recommendations to mitigate discrimination of
domestic workers in Washington State using vulnerability factors as the overarching framework.
Although live-in domestic workers are perhaps in a more vulnerable situation, evidence shows
that those who work in private households are also vulnerable to discrimination and abuse in the
workforce. Vulnerability factors place domestic workers in Washington State in a
disadvantageous position to seek redress for employer abuse and discrimination due to race,
national origin, socioeconomic status, and gender. Although this memo uses the term
“immigrant,” the evidence gathered to support my argument for intervention relies largely on
data on the Latino/Hispanic population, which is the second largest foreign-born population in
Washington State after Asians, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.i
Part I: Problem Statement
According to Human Rights Watch, domestic workers worldwide face physical, psychological,
and sexual abuse, labor exploitation, forced confinement in the workplace, non-payment of
wages, and “excessively long working hours with no rest days.”ii According to the report,
worldwide, migrant domestic workers are especially vulnerable to human rights abuses from
both their employers and in some countries abused at job trainings, departure, entry, and return to
and from their countries.
In California and New York, research shows that 33 to 38 percent of domestic workers
interviewed were abused by their employers, while the large majority lacked livable wages and
wages for over-time.iii Domestic workers are among a handful of occupations excluded from
the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) definition of “employee”iv and thus largely excluded
from most basic labor rights such as meal breaks, paid over time, the right to join a union, and so
forth. In addition, domestic workers are vulnerable to a myriad of poor working conditions that
leave them vulnerable to discrimination in the workforce (see Appendix I, Vulnerability Factors
Matrix).
“I couldn’t go out for even one second I wasn’t allowed to leave the house [alone] at
all. [The family] told me that if I went outside, the police would arrest me because I did
not have my papers [with me]. They said that without a green card, the police would
arrest. [They said] America is bad and that it would be bad if I went outside as a
single woman, so I never went outside. I was like a bird in a cage.”
--Rokeya Akhatar, Bangladeshi Domestic Worker in U.S., Human Rights Watch report, 2006

3. Part II: History of Discrimination
o !#
!
“It
“ was cle even t a
ear to
Despite t fact that millions of i
the m immigrant pr rofessionals and seven-ye ear-old, th
hat
internatio students are encouraged to (and in fact do)
onal s d brown peeople didnn’t
temporar and/or pe
rily ermanently r reside in the United Stat
e tes;
belong here” in Ne ew
and that t United States boasts among the l
the S largest ethni
ically
diverse p
populations, certain popu ulations have confronted
e d York C in the
City
numerou human and civil rights violations. Specifically
us d s y, 1960 “I do
0s.
groups su as minor
uch rities, wome refugees a immigra
en, and ants remembe the whi
er ite
have been largely exc cluded from labor protec
m ction laws bo oth people an the sno
p nd ooty
v
nation- a statewide Even whe these grou have law
and e. en ups ws loo
oks.”
written to protect the in practic and thus e
o em, ce enforcement t,
these law have often been overlooked or under-enforced
ws n d,
which ha resulted in innumerab clashes b
ave i ble between thos se --“Carla,” nanny i
in
seeking rredress and protection from the State (vulnerable
p e e NYC quot in “Ho
N ted ome
populatio and thos enforcing juxtaposing laws and
ons) se g g Is
I Where the Work Is”
k
societal n
norms (the State, i.e. fed
S deral and stat governme
te ents). (2
2006)
Historica evidence suggests th the majo
al hat ority of dommestic "$
"
workers in the Uni ited States since the turn of the 20th
e
Century— not, before—have been im
—if b e mmigrants a and/or
women o color who have exper
of o rienced discrrimination d to
due
race, gen
nder, socioec
conomic statu or a com
us, mbination of tthese.
Societal norms and co-existin laws an policies have
d ng nd
required both federal and state agencies to enforce often
e
times coontradicting responsibiliities. Althouugh data on the
n
vi
current la
abor conditio of dome
ons estic workers in Washin
s ngton
State is limited, historical data regarding d discriminatio of
on
immigran and var
nts rious survey including anecdotal data
ys, g l
from C CASA Latin vii suggest that t
na, the numbe ofer
vulnerability factors and looph
s holes in lab laws ex
bor xclude
domestic workers fro protectio from hum rights ab
c om on man buses.
Therefore, domestic workers are vulnerable to physica and
e e al
psycholoogical abuse sexual ha
e, arassment, r racism and other
forms of discriminati in the wo
ion orkforce.
Accordin to a Pew Hispanic Su
ng urvey of Lattinos’ percep
ptions
of discri
imination, nearly one-i
n in-ten Hispa anics (8 peercent
native-bo and 10 percent immi
orn p igrants) repo that in the past
ort e
year poli or other authorities have questi
ice ioned them about
migration sta viii Over half of tho surveyed say
their imm atus. ose
they wor a lot (40 percent) or w
rry worry some (an addition 17
nal
percent) “that they themselves, a family member or a close
t
friend mmay be de eported.” H
Hispanics e experience racial
nation and worry abou how thei ethnicity may
discrimin ut ir

4. affect their job and housing status. The majority (68 percent) of those who worry about
deportation; and the majority of those who have experienced job and housing difficulties (63 and
71 percent respectively) because of their ethnicity say that Latinos’ situation in the country is
worse today (2007) than it was a year ago.
These statistics show that fear and distrust contribute to the overall lives of Hispanics living in
the United States, whether in the workforce or at home—or for domestic workers the
“workplace” is in the home. In the past, domestic workers were excluded from discriminatory
practices when their services and thus their work favored those in power, i.e. White or Caucasian
men.
After the U.S. Supreme Court validated racial deed restrictions in 1926, several King County
neighborhoods exempted domestic workers from discriminatory housing practices if their
employer was of the “White or Caucasian race” and if the “servant” resided in his/her home.ix
Numerous neighborhoods in Seattle excluded Ethiopians, Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Hebrews,
and more generally, persons of “Asiatic, African or Negro blood” from leasing, renting, and/or
purchasing property.x Although I have defined in this memo “domestic workers” to include
various occupations, “domestic servants” is still used for one categorical occupation to describe
duties performed in private households, classified by the U.S. Department of
Labor (DOL) and thus L&I definitions. The continual use of
the word insinuates a power imbalance between employer
and worker, dating back to the racial tensions between
White employers and domestic servants who were
“Another domestic worker on and continue to be largely women of color,
a temporary work visa in the according to Domestic Workers United (DWU), a
United States told [us] she New-York based advocacy organization.xi
was so frightened by what her
employer told her that she Anecdotal data from CASA Latina suggests that
didn’t go out, even on her day the word “domestic servants” is inappropriate to
off, for two-and-a-half years.” use to describe occupations of domestic
workers.xii However, because it is the legal term
--Human Rights Watch used to describe workers who work in private
Report, 2006 households, in a training for CASA Latina’s
Household Helpers Program in Seattle, Washington,
Columbia Legal Services (CLS) referred to the
women’s occupation as such, “servants.” During the guest
speakers’ presentation, Coordinator Veronique Facchinelli
interrupted the training to inform them to discontinue using the term. A week later, CLS
apologized to the group of women. Nonetheless, national and statewide occupational categories
still list “domestic servants” as a legal term, which can affect how state agencies treat domestic
workers in discrimination and employer abuse accusations.
In extreme forms, these clashes have resulted in violent confrontations, deportations,
repatriation, internment camps, and group racism that result in violence against vulnerable
populations. In softer non-violent forms, these clashes have resulted in lawsuits against the State,

5. cross-cultural miscommunication, and lack of trust often rooted by fear between vulnerable
populations and State agencies. Although at first glance, lack of trust and existing fear may not
seem like factors federal and state agencies should consider, these factors hinder a State’s ability
to (1) protect all workers from discrimination, as stated in various anti-discriminatory U.S. laws
(see Appendix II); (2) serve historically vulnerable populations through equitable allocation of
State services; and (3) meet workforce and economic growth projections.
There are a number of factors that place domestic workers in a vulnerable position who neglect
to report violation of their rights (see Appendix III). These “vulnerability factors” make it
challenging for L&I to effectively address employer abuse and thus effectively enforce labor
rights for all workers while simultaneously complying with anti-discrimination laws. In addition,
lack of mutual cultural understanding may further exacerbate the miscommunications between
State agencies and vulnerable populations.
Part III: Why Intervene? The Evidence
1) Minority growth population projections
and foreign-born population statistics have
similar demands but different needs
Both Native born and foreign-born Hispanics have
been the fastest growing and largest ethnic group in
the United States since 1970.xiii Although the
majority of immigrants before 1970 came from
Europe to the United States, post-1970, the large
majority came from Latin America. In 1900, 84.9
percent of immigrants came from Europe, whereas in
1990, 42.5 percent came from Latin America, which
became the biggest foreign-born sector at 42.5
percent, double the next highest foreign-born group that year, Asia, at 25.2 percent.xiv In 1990,
more than 1 in 5 of the U.S.-foreign born came from Mexico, a group that had the lowest wages
and lowest educational attainment compared to the top foreign born populations that year.
This ‘melting pot’ has contributed to diverse groups of populations coinciding. At the same time,
as a result of these populations, many nonprofits, organizations, and institutions have to pay
more attention to cultural differences in planning and implementing social services and other
governmental programs.
2.) Women and children need legal services most
Vulnerability factors and protection from discrimination for domestic workers is a public policy
problem because it juxtaposes the tensions between existing labor laws to protect employees and
those excluded from the definition of “employee” due to occupation, immigration status,
knowledge asymmetry and/or a combination of these. Despite that according to Immigration
Customs and Enforcement (ICE), "employers are reminded that it is unlawful to discriminate

6. against employees based upon their national origin, including
‘foreign’ appearance or accent, with respect to hiring, firing, and
the terms and conditions of employment,”xv 33 percent of L&I’s Mission:
domestic workers in the California survey reported that “What this startling
immigration status did indeed contribute to employer abuse.xvi document tells us is that
“We support the state’sthe
battles these women endure
economic well-being by
The majority of the women in both surveys are the primary extend far beyond the rights
protecting the safety of
income earners of their families but overall as a whole, foreign- of labor. They are immersed
born Latin American women in the U.S. tend to earn less than Washington’s workers,
in a struggle for human
their male counterparts in household income and have fewer providing benefits to
rights and dignity; for
years of education. injured workers and social
immigrants’ rights and
ensuring fair wages and of
justice; for the dismantling
quality and globalization.”
racism industry services.”
3.) All workers no matter country of origin have the
right to work free from discrimination
--Robin Kelley, William
There is an existing power imbalance between employers and WHRC’s Mission:
B. Ransford,
domestic workers (mostly immigrants) and a lack of labor laws Professor of Cultural
and enforcement mechanisms to prevent employer abuse. In and Historical Studies,
“To eliminate and prevent
addition to employer abuse, immigrants are not safe from ICE Columbia University,
discrimination of “Home is
speaking
through the
work raids despite legal documentation. For example, in February
fair application of the law,
Where the Work Is”
2008, ICE officials raided Micro Solutions Enterprises in
California and arrested 138 employees for immigration the efficient 2006 of
report, use
questioning, although 114 (or 83 percent) of whom were U.S. resources, and the
citizens or legal U.S. residents. As a result, the Center for Human establishment of
Rights and Constitutional Law filed a lawsuit against the U.S. partnerships with the
government on behalf of the legal employees to seek damages community.”
from the wrongful detentions.xvii
Wrongful detentions are a result of failed national and state
policies and contradicting ICE policies that inhibit immigrant Domestic Workers
workers to work free of fear, discrimination, and abuse. United Mission:
Employers who physically and/or psychologically abuse
domestic workers have an advantage because of their status and “Organizing for power,
relationship with the state. According to the Pew Hispanic respect, fair labor
Center, half of all Latinos in the United States say the situation
for Latinos is worse than it was a year ago and 76 percent
standards and to help
disapprove of work raids.xviii Washington is no stranger to such build a movement to end
work raids that create fear among immigrant workers. exploitation and
oppression for all.”
5.) To mitigate civil and class-action lawsuits of
discrimination
A $2 million class-action lawsuit against the State of Washington
was settled in August 2008, a case resulting from an unlawful
ICE work raid (officials disguised as translators who

7. accompanied the Department of Social and Health Services) of 46 Latina daycare workers in
Mattawa, Washington, a town largely composed of farm workers.xix Children didn’t know what
had happened to their mothers since a couple were arrested from their worksite and thus left
virtually unattended. DSHS seized numerous original business records and personal documents
without a judicially reviewed warrant, according to Columbia Legal Services.
Anecdotal evidence from CASA Latina shows that immigrant workers, especially female
domestic workers, need protection from discrimination both in the workforce and on the streets
from state authorities; and need to increase the enforcement mechanisms so workers can feel
safe.
As of March 2006, there are approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United
States, 60 percent of whom are employed in various sectors (see graph, right) and 66 percent of
whom have lived in the U.S. for 10 years or less, while 40 percent, five years or less. Of those
undocumented, about half are adult males, 35 percent adult females, and 16 percent are
children.xx
Vulnerability factors and lack of workforce protection matters because the problem juxtaposes
the tensions between existing labor laws and anti-discrimination laws to protect employees and
those excluded from the definition of “employee” due to occupation and size of employment
force and the numerous anti-discrimination laws largely do not apply to domestic workers
because they are usually hired on an individual basis and thus do not fall under the “15 or more
employees” rule.
Figure 1: U.S. Census Bureau Estimates
In Washington State, Washington!State!Foreign"Born!
the largest foreign-
born population since Population!2002"2007
2002 is from Asia 350,000 310,793
and the second
300,000
largest is from Latin 247,942 247,859
America (see Figure 250,000
Population!Size
1).xxi According to Asia
the U.S. Department 200,000 173,779 Latin!Amer.
139,220
of Labor, there were 150,000 138,148 Europe
approximately 54,590
100,000 Northern!Amer.
domestic workers in 48,333
42,885
Washington State in 50,000 Africa
2006.xxii By 2018, Oceania
L&I projects the 0
number of child care 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
workers alone to Year
reach more than
46,000 (see Figure

8. 2). Nationwide, according to the International Labour Organization, the majority of domestic
workers are females.
Figure 2: Foreign-Born Populations by Country
Largest!Foreign"Born!Groups!by!Country!of!
Birth:!1980!and!1990
4,298
4,500
4,000
Population!Size!(000)
3,500
3,000
2,500 2,199
2,000
1,500
1,000 1980
500 1990
0
Countries
Several sources cite forced migration as the reason why domestic workers come to the United
States to work for low wages. According to the
DAMAYAN Migrant Workers Association—an advocacy organization that promotes the rights
and welfare of Filipino migrant workers based in New York and New Jersey—“ninety percent of
the 1,700 Filipino women who leave the Philippines everyday become domestic workers in
foreign countries.”xxiii Although domestic workers data based on race was not available at the
time of this memo for Washington State, statistics on foreign-born population, coupled with
national demographics of domestic workers could lead state agencies to surmise that statewide
demographics are similar.
What is known, however, is that national and state anti-discriminatory laws for the most part
exclude domestic workers under their protection either because (a) domestic workers are hired in
numbers less than 15 (the national and state minimum to be protected); (b) the increasing
concern, fear and distrust among immigrant communities, as shown particularly in the Latino
population, toward state agencies can contribute to information asymmetry; and/or (c) society
does not value domestic work as “real work.”xxiv

9. California and New York
Few qualitative studies exist on the working conditions of the often called ‘hidden industry’ of
domestic workers. However, two studies in San Francisco, California and New York City, New
York show significant concern for workplace safety (or lack thereof) for household workers, the
large majority of whom are immigrants (99 percent of California respondents were born outside
of the United States).xxv The following chart summarizes the results of both studies.
Survey Information California New York
# of survey respondents 240 547
Physically or verbally abused 38% (an additional 35% didn’t respond 33%
by employer to this question)
Lack of overtime pay 90% N/A
Earn low wages (<$14.26) 67% 50%
Non-livable wages 93% 87%
Immigration status contributed 33% N/A
to abusive actions
Primary income earner 54% 59%
! 6 yrs worked in industry 31% N/A
Despite that according to Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), "employers are
reminded that it is unlawful to discriminate against employees based upon their national origin,
including ‘foreign’ appearance or accent, with respect to hiring, firing, and the terms and
conditions of employment.”xxvi Of those surveyed in California, 33 percent of domestic workers
reported that immigration status did indeed contribute to employer abuse.xxvii
There is an existing power imbalance between employers and domestic workers (mostly
immigrants) and a lack of labor laws and enforcement mechanisms to prevent employer abuse. In
addition to employer abuse, immigrants are not safe from ICE work raids despite legal
documentation. For example, in February 2008, ICE officials raided Micro Solutions Enterprises
in California and arrested 138 employees for immigration questioning, although 114 (or 83
percent) were U.S. citizens or legal U.S. residents. As a result, the Center for Human Rights and
Constitutional Law filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government on behalf of the legal employees
to seek damages from the wrongful detentions.xxviii

10. “It is unlawful to
discriminate based upon
Yet, despite these lawsuit and despite the vast number of laws
citizenship or immigration
protecting female workers from discrimination, domestic workers
status against U.S. citizens
or nationals, refugees,
Figure 3: Industry Population, Washington State
asylees, or lawful
permanent residents, with
respect to hiring, firing, or
Employed!Domestic!Workers,! employment verification.”
Washington!State
--Immigration and
18,500 Child!Care!Workers
16,500
Nationality Act's
14,500 anti-discrimination
#!of!Workers
12,500 provision, 8 U.S.C.§
Maids!&!
10,500
Housekeeping!
1324b.
8,500
Cleaners
6,500
4,500 Personal!&!Home!
2,500 Care!Aids
Home!Health!Aides
Year The Washington State
anti-discrimination law
gives inhabitants of
Washington the “right to be
Figure 4: Industry Population, U.S. free from discrimination at
work, in housing, in a
Domestic!Workers!in!the!United! public accommodation, or
States!(thousands) when seeking credit and
insurance.”
100% 17 26
90% Male!Cleaners!&! --WSHRC website
80% Servants
70% 386
474 Female!Cleaners!&!
60% Servants
50% 11 Male!Child!Care!Wkrs
40%
7
30%
329 Female!Child!Care!Wkrs
20% 268
10%
0% 30 11 Male!Housekeepers!&!
Butlers
1991 2000

11. Figures 5 and 6: Mean Hourly and Annual Wages for Domestic Workers
Mean!Hourly!Wages!for!Domestic!Workers!in!
Washington!State
$11.00!
$10.00! Child!Care!Workers
Hourly!Wage
$9.00! Maids!&!Housekeeping!
Cleaners
$8.00! Personal!&!Home!Care!Aids
$7.00!
Home!Health!Aides
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Mean!Annual!Wages!of!Domestic!Workers,!
Washington!State
$21,500! Child!Care!Workers
Annual!Income
$20,000!
$18,500! Maids!&!Housekeeping!
$17,000! Cleaners
$15,500!
Personal!&!Home!Care!Aids
$14,000!
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Home!Health!Aides
Year
Part IV: Criteria and Objectives
Although both L&I and WSHRC have adopted goals and strategic plans for the upcoming years,
it is important to recognize that the underlying assumptions and/or national labor definitions of
standard occupational categories limit the overarching missions of each agency by excluding
domestic workers, a sector composed of a growing immigrant/foreign-born population in
Washington State. In addition, the historical context of discrimination of vulnerable populations
and the vulnerability factors (as listed in Appendix I) that contribute to the socio-economic and
racial power imbalances between employers and domestic workers should be integrated into the
decision-making process of policy options.

12. Among the major goals listed in L&I’s 2009-2013 Strategic Plan are:
! “Make Washington workplaces safer,
! “Protect public safety and property; support the economic well-being of individuals and
businesses;
! “Achieve high performance through efficiency, innovation and accountability.”xxix
Among the major goals listed in WSHRC’s 2006-2011 Strategic Plan are:
"
! “Adopt suitable rules and regulations to eliminate and prevent discrimination,
! “Issue publications and findings that promote goodwill and advance the agency’s
mission,
! “Conduct and publish technical studies that further the agency’s mission, and
! “Foster good community relations through seminars, training, and educational
programs.”xxx
Considering L&I and WSHRC’s separate but overlapping missions and strategic plans, we will
define both our objectives and criteria as (i) equity, (ii) cultural competency, and (iii) public
accountability.
Of the 1,065 new complaints of discrimination received during FY 2002-03 at WSHRC, 82
percent were in employment, 11percent were in housing and 7 percent were regarding places of
public accommodation. Minorities and people with disabilities have unemployment rates that
correlate with WSHRC staff’s caseload: “25% of complaints filed allege national origin or race
employment discrimination and 29% allege disability discrimination.” xxxi With the central intake
office in Olympia, it is important to collaborate with regional offices and other state agencies to
outreach to historically vulnerable populations, particularly female immigrant domestic workers,
to assure equity of services without degrading the quality of investigations and over-burdening
staff with unrealistic caseloads.
Equity
1. Equity: the existence of policies to equally serve vulnerable populations with agency
services, defined as low-income, immigrant, refugee, and other cross-vulnerable
populations such as low-income female immigrants.
According to the Washington State Civil Needs Study:

13. ! “Roughly 87% of low-income households experience a civil legal problem each year,
! “Low-income people face 88% of their legal problems without help,
! “Women and children face more legal problems than the low-income community in
general,
! “Low-income people who receive legal assistance have better outcomes and greater
respect for the justice system than those who do not.”xxxii
Lack of information (or misinformation) regarding services available in WSHRC may contribute
to these statistics, coupled with cultural misunderstandings not limited to language barriers but
including historical relationships and thus issues of trust and fear between state agencies and
vulnerable populations.
Cultural Competency
2. Cultural Competency: the existence of available policies to mitigate discrimination
disputes in employment to underserved and historically vulnerable populations in
Washington State, concentrating on female immigrant populations with limited English
proficiency.
Although WSHRC currently provides brochures in multiple languages, cultural competency
requires more than language translation. Rather, cross-cultural understanding means that the
Washington State Anti-Discrimination Law will be applied both internally and externally with
consciousness of deeply-rooted beliefs of vulnerable populations, including past state initiatives
that “color blindness” will solve discriminatory practices.xxxiii
Public Accountability
3. Public Accountability: the enforcement and transparency of procedures and
responsibilities assigned to WSHRC.
Since WSHRC is a state agency, it must be held accountable to the public by accomplishing
tasks that the Governor has assigned to it, particularly by investigating human rights abuses and
thus discrimination employment complaints based on race, creed, national origin, sex, disability,
marital status, age and Affirmative Action, as outlined under the jurisdiction in the Strategic Plan
2006-2011. In a time when anti-immigration sentiment is re-surging, your agency is responsible
for ensuring that all practices and thus the “hiring and firing” of employees isn’t discriminatory.
Part V: Policy Options
Option 1: Status Quo – i.e. change nothing
No change to current agency policies. L&I will continue to track number of household workers
without regard to level of employer abuse of domestic workers and WHRC will continue to
neglect to provide online information regarding domestic workers’ rights and code of conduct.

14. Criteria: Equity, Cultural Competency, and Public Accountability
This option would be a disservice to the very people WSHRC seeks and (by jurisdiction) must
serve. Although many specific online forms and information are available in Spanish, one has to
‘surf’ the website and read through pages of information to find any information on how to file a
complaint and information related to immigrants’ rights. This is a daunting task for those
unfamiliar with the usual format of institutional websites, such as low-income, elderly, and
foreigners.1
Although the Strategic Plan is available online and the process of how to file a complaint is
relatively easy (5 pages), it is unclear what a client can do besides wait after completing the
form. That is, no timeframe is guaranteed, which affects public accountability and transparency
of processes. In addition, the listed partners (although they work in the same field) are mostly
state and city agencies instead of cross-sector collaboration or partnerships, which neglects much
of the cultural competency criterion by reinforcing historical relationships between those who
seek redress and those with the decision-making power.
Option 2: Increase cross-cultural and multilingual services and disseminate
information on human rights through partnerships
Nonprofits such as CASA Latina, Columbia Legal Services, Washington CASH, and other
ethnic-specific organizations are stakeholders in building effective dissemination of WSHRC
services and processes and in seeking volunteers and internships for help with language
translation and cross-cultural communication.
During times of recession (now) is when WSHRC should partner with existing organizations to
avoid leaving vulnerable populations while still complying with your agency’s mission to
investigate discrimination complaints and enforce the Washington State Anti-discrimination
Law.
Criteria: Equity, Cultural Competency, and Public Accountability
The current and projected increased cuts in state budgets leave state services for low-income
Washington residents vulnerable to scaled back social services, including cut-back availability of
the Basic Plan, during a time of recession.xxxiv It is within WSHRC’s responsibility and capacity
to outreach to historical vulnerable populations such as immigrants and minorities. Including
domestic workers in planning and implementing culturally-centered services would help
retrocede the historical damaging relationship between state agencies and low-income female
immigrant women who work in this field.
Whether it is the intake phone call, the form available in another language, or staff awareness of
1
Anecdotal data from international students in the Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of
Washington suggests that institutional websites that Americans or U.S.-born students can easily navigate, can be a
daunting and incomprehensible task for some foreigners.

15. other cultures, partnering with ethnically diverse organizations would prove high in allocating
services equitably to vulnerable populations while making them aware of WSHRC and gaining
integrity while possibly improving employee morale, which has been a recent concern according
to the Strategic Plan.
Option 3: Advocate to change and influence public opinion on perceptions of
domestic workers to value household work as ‘real work’
Cultural misconceptions and stereotypes often contribute to the anti-immigration sentiment seen
in the mainstream media. Domestic workers have historically been excluded from labor laws,
with the exception of the recent passage in New York of the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights.
Others states by comparison have worked harder at breaking stereotypes and misperceptions of
the industry by: advocating and/or passing for increased protection for all employees who
contribute to the economy, whether formal or informal; distributing informational pamphlets and
handouts on domestic workers’ rights; and/or regulating the supply side of the industry.
Criteria: Equity, Cultural Competency, and Public Accountability
Although Washington State hasn’t tried to pass a Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, it is possible
for a reputable agency such as WSHRC to promote understanding of an industry that many
people know little about. This is equitable in terms of serving the vulnerable populations; it is
highly culturally competent and relevant; and it would increase the concern and make people
aware that all workers have the right to be free from discrimination.
Part VI: Policy Recommendation
I recommend that you implement both Options II and III to simultaneously combat the roots of
little or underuse of services by low-income and immigrant populations, the very clients your
agency seeks to serve. This will increase awareness of rights of domestic workers through
partnering with nonprofits that work daily with vulnerable populations. Using the criteria stated
above (see next page), the outcomes in both the short and long term are greatly beneficial to your
agency.
Part VII: Conclusion
In conclusion, domestic workers worldwide face a myriad of factors that contribute to their
vulnerability of not receiving wages for completed work, for working in private households that
is hard to regulate, and for their demographic make-up. Cross-cultural appropriate services are
needed in all social services and in addressing human rights abuses of domestic workers. Race,
class, gender, socio-economic status, and immigration status are among a handful of the main
factors that leave female immigrant domestic workers at the whims of their employers. It is up to
agencies such as the WSHRC to fully grasp the scope of discrimination in the workforce—and
the pertaining solutions to solve it while keeping pace with the growing foreign-born populations
that Washington State benefits from.

16. Pro m
oblem Cr
riteria
a Ou mes
utcom
Short!Term:!Incre
eased!
repporting!of!work
kforce!
Equity discr
rimination;!lon
ng"term!
decrease
Workforce!discrimination
n!and!
domestic!work
abuse!of!d kers Cross"ccultural!undersstanding,!
efficie
ency!of!service
es,!and!
Cultu
ural!Competen
ncy avoidance!of!misperc ceptions!
&!stereotypes s
Fulfillment!of!miss
sion,!
Public!Accountabil
lity utiny!of!tax!dollars,!
scru
inccreased!custommer!
satisfac
ction!and!public!trust!
in!govt

17. Appendix I: Factors of Vulnerability
VULNERABILTY MATRIX
Contributing Factors Contributing Actions Negative Outcomes
Immigration status - documented Repatriation, deportation, arrest, work raids, Increased fear and distrust between
vs. undocumented possible wrongful accusations of legal status immigrant communities and state agencies;
without legal aid recourse or redress civil rights lawsuits against the State
Gender - female Sexual harassment, sexual assault, physical Psychological trauma, fear in the workplace
abuse, psychological threats, and rape and in public, possible severed relations with
immediate family members and friends, and
lower self-esteem
Poverty measured by household Anti-poverty programs that exclude non-citizens, Decreased access to health services; increased
income and Federal Poverty Line or undocumented workers and/or actual or reliance on hospitals as form of care;
(FPL) perceived “illegal” immigration status decreased good health status
Language and cultural barriers Barriers to access information, decreased Cross-cultural miscommunication,
awareness of rights, and over-reliance on stereotypes and cultural misconceptions,
nonprofits and/or state services for translation feelings of inferiority
services
Occupation as ‘domestic servant’ Exclusion from “employee” definition and Insinuating power imbalance between
or ‘household employee’ various labor protection laws employer and worker, and reinforcing
historical relationship between ‘servant’ and
‘master’
Race Verbal / institutional / group racism, hate crimes, Low self-esteem, perpetual racism, shy away
possible violence, negative social stigma, from resources and social services when
related to experiences of racism, feelings of
inferiority

18. Appendix IIxxxv
LAWS PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION
Law Description Enforcement Agency
E.O. 11246 Prohibits covered federal contractors and subcontractors Office of Federal Contract
from discriminating on basis of race, color, religion, sex Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
or national origin
Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964 Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or Civil Rights Center
national origin in programs and activities that receive
federal financial assistance
Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 Prohibits discrimination in “hiring, promotion, discharge, Equal Employment Opportunity
pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral Commission (EEOC)
and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race,
color, religion, sex or national origin”
Freedom From Discrimination, also The right to: Washington State Human Rights
known as Washington State Law (a) obtain and hold employment without discrimination; Commission (WSHRC)
Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60. (b) to full enjoyment of any accommodation, advantages,
facilities or privileges of any place of public resort,
accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;
(c) to engage in real estate transactions without
discrimination;
(d) to engage in credit transactions without
discrimination;
(e) to engage in insurance transactions or transactions
with HMOs without discrimination;
(f) to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory
boycotts or blacklists

19. Endnotes
i
Lapham, Susan. “We the American…Foreign Born.” U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics
Administration, Bureau of the Census. Accessed at:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/foreign/cendata.html.
ii
“Swept Under the Rug.” Human Rights Watch. July 25, 2006. Found at:
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2006/07/25/swept-under-rug
iv
“Home is Where the Work Is: Inside New York’s Domestic Work Industry.” Domestic Workers United &
DataCenter, 2004.
v
For a U.S. historical context, see novel, “Labor Rights are Civil Rights, Mexican-American Workers in Twentieth
Century America” by Zaragosa Vargas (2005). For a Washington State context, see “Seattle Civil Rights and Labor
History Project,” found at: http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/.
vi
According to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and Washington State Labor and Industries (L&I), “domestic
workers” isn’t considered an official occupation. Rather, the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) has an industry code for Private Households. These occupations include: “Housekeeper, housework, house
cleaner”; “Servant”; “Helper, Laundry”; and “Home Care Aide.” In this memo, I will refer to “domestic workers” in
terms of these occupations but will also use other data available that may or may not include all of these
occupational categories.
vii
Centro de Ayuda Solidaria a los Amigos (CASA) Latina is a community-based organization located in Seattle,
Washington that empowers Latino immigrants through educational and employment opportunities.
viii
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=93
ix
http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/images/innes%20arden/innis%20arden%20covenant%20lg.jpg
x
http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants.htm
xi
http://www.domesticworkersunited.org/programs.php
xiii
See footnote i.
xv
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/wse_advisory_v27.pdf
xvi
“Behind Closed Doors: Working Conditions of California Household Workers.” Mujeres Unidas y Activas, Day
Labor Program Women’s Collective of La Raza Centro Legal, DataCenter. March 2007.
xvii
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-24-Immigration-raids_N.htm
xviii
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=93
xix
Beach, Marissa. “Undocumented immigrants: workers or criminals?” The Daily. 29 September 2008.
<http://dailyuw.com/2008/9/29/undocumented-immigrants-workers-or-criminals/>.
Pittz, Will. “Small Town Justice.” Color Lines Magazine. Winter 2003.
<http://www.colorlines.com/article.php?ID=60>.
xx
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf

20. xxi
U.S. Census Bureau (see footnote in graphs)
xxii
http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_arch.htm
xxiii
http://damayanmigrantworkers.blogspot.com/
xxiv
Home is Where the Work Is: Inside New York’s Domestic Work Industry.” Domestic Workers United &
DataCenter, 2004.
xxv
Ibid and see footnote xvi.
xxvi
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/wse_advisory_v27.pdf
xxvii
“Behind Closed Doors: Working Conditions of California Household Workers.” Mujeres Unidas y Activas, Day
Labor Program Women’s Collective of La Raza Centro Legal, DataCenter. March 2007.
xxviii
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-24-Immigration-raids_N.htm
xxix
http://www.lni.wa.gov/IPUB/101-085-000.pdf
xxx
http://www.hum.wa.gov/documents/stratpln050304.pdf
xxxi
http://www.hum.wa.gov/documents/stratpln050304.pdf
xxxii
http://www.lri.lsc.gov/needsassessment/needsassessment_detail_T293_R4.asp
xxxiii
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/291051_trahant05.html
xxxiv
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008466683_healthplan04.html
xxxv
https://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/ethnicdisc.htm