> - How is this implemented? Don't know the actual proposal here, but almost certainly adds "caste" to the list of protected classes. Although it appears that

> - How is this implemented? Don't know the actual proposal here, but almost certainly adds "caste" to the list of protected classes. Although it appears that "ancestry" is already an explicit protected class here: https://www.seattle.gov/civilrights/civil-rights-enforcement/find-help https://www.seattle.gov/civilrights/civil-rights-enforcement... > - How is caste defined under American law? - Is there an enumerated list of all castes? The US is a common law system, so the answer is "it doesn't matter, it's up to court interpretation." > - How does one demonstrate under American law that person A is of caste X and person B is of caste Y? This starts to get to the heart of the matter, what does a plaintiff have to show to be able to demonstrate discrimination on the basis of caste. My guess is that caste discrimination is already effectively covered by existing protected classes, but trying to convince a judge that the fact pattern is working towards establishing caste to thence be used for discrimination is likely to be exceedingly difficult at present. Add in "caste" as an explicit protected class, and, well, the plaintiff's job is much easier. > - How is caste "assigned"? - Can one switch castes? Is ones caste immutable? - Does one register a caste like a political party? These are all more or less irrelevant for the purposes of discrimination. It's the defendant (alleged discriminator)'s belief of the plaintiff's caste that matters. If that belief is incorrect, but was still used for the purposes of discrimination, it's illegal.