Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. Garda CL Nw., Inc.green2 sentences2025To establish a bona fide dispute, the employer must show that (1) the employer had a subjective “genuine belief in the dispute at the time of the wage violation” and (2) “[the] dispute must be objectively reasonable—that is, the issue must be fairly debatable.” Hill, 191 Wn.2d at 562 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2024To satisfy the subjective component, “[t]he employer must have a ‘genuine belief’ in the dispute at the time of the wage violation.” Hill, 191 Wn.2d at 562 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Chelan County Sheriffs’ Ass’n v. Chelan County, 109 Wn.2d 282, 301 , 745 P.2d 1 (1987)). | 2 | 4 |
Ellerman v. Centerpoint Prepress, Inc.green2 sentences2014Rekhter , like most of our chapter 49.52 RCW cases over its long history, never describes the act as the “wage rebate act.”See, e.g., Morgan v. Kingen, 166 Wn.2d 526 , 210 P.3d 995 (2009); Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152 , 961 P.2d 371 (1998); State v. Carter, 18 Wn.2d 590 , 140 P.2d 298 , 142 P.2d 403 (1943). f35 In Rekhter , we held that “in order to prevail on a wage claim, the employee must show that the party withholding the wages was both an agent and had control over the payment of wages.” Rekhter, 180 Wn.2d at 123 (citing Ellerman v. Centerpoint Prepress, Inc., 143 Wn. 2014In Ellerman, we held that in order to prevail on a wage claim, the employee must show that the party withholding the wages was both an agent and had control over the payment of wages. 143 Wn.2d at 522-23 (“[T]he statutes in question require more than the establishment of an agency relationship. | 2 | 4 |
Rekhter v. Department of Social & Health Servicesgreen2 sentences2014See Rekhter, 180 Wn.2d at 123 (explaining what plaintiff must show “in order to prevail on a wage claim” under RCW 49.52.050). 2014Rekhter , like most of our chapter 49.52 RCW cases over its long history, never describes the act as the “wage rebate act.”See, e.g., Morgan v. Kingen, 166 Wn.2d 526 , 210 P.3d 995 (2009); Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152 , 961 P.2d 371 (1998); State v. Carter, 18 Wn.2d 590 , 140 P.2d 298 , 142 P.2d 403 (1943). f35 In Rekhter , we held that “in order to prevail on a wage claim, the employee must show that the party withholding the wages was both an agent and had control over the payment of wages.” Rekhter, 180 Wn.2d at 123 (citing Ellerman v. Centerpoint Prepress, Inc., 143 Wn. | 2 | 2 |
Chelan County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. County of Chelangreen2 sentences2024To satisfy the subjective component, “[t]he employer must have a ‘genuine belief’ in the dispute at the time of the wage violation.” Hill, 191 Wn.2d at 562 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Chelan County Sheriffs’ Ass’n v. Chelan County, 109 Wn.2d 282, 301 , 745 P.2d 1 (1987)). 2024To satisfy the subjective component, “[t]he employer must have a ‘genuine belief’ in the dispute at the time of the wage violation.” Hill, 191 Wn.2d at 562 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Chelan County Sheriffs’ Ass’n v. Chelan County, 109 Wn.2d 282, 301 , 745 P.2d 1 (1987)). | 1 | 3 |
Wingert v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2024App. at 698-99 (affirming trial court’s damages award issued in reliance on expert testimony establishing backpay damages for violation of meal and rest period provisions of WAC 296-126-092); Wingert, 104 Wn. 2017This court construes the statute liberally in order to “protect employee wages and assure payment.” Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152, 159 , 961 P.2d 371 (1998). ¶90 In Wingert v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., the court held that an employer’s failure to provide its employees with rest periods was a wage violation. 104 Wn. | 1 | 2 |
Pellino v. Brink's, Inc.green1 sentence2024App. at 360 (“violating the meal period requirement is a wage violation”); 24 No. 85502-6-I/25 Pellino, 164 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
Ebling v. Gove's Cove, Inc.green2 sentences2018See Chelan County, 109 Wash.2d at 301 , 745 P.2d 1 (quoting Ebling v. Gove's Cove, Inc., 34 Wash. App. 495 , 500, 663 P.2d 132 (1983) ). 2018See Chelan County, 109 Wash.2d at 301 , 745 P.2d 1 (quoting Ebling v. Gove's Cove, Inc., 34 Wash. App. 495 , 500, 663 P.2d 132 (1983) ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017This court construes the statute liberally in order to “protect employee wages and assure payment.” Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152, 159 , 961 P.2d 371 (1998). ¶90 In Wingert v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., the court held that an employer’s failure to provide its employees with rest periods was a wage violation. 104 Wn. 2014Rekhter , like most of our chapter 49.52 RCW cases over its long history, never describes the act as the “wage rebate act.”See, e.g., Morgan v. Kingen, 166 Wn.2d 526 , 210 P.3d 995 (2009); Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152 , 961 P.2d 371 (1998); State v. Carter, 18 Wn.2d 590 , 140 P.2d 298 , 142 P.2d 403 (1943). f35 In Rekhter , we held that “in order to prevail on a wage claim, the employee must show that the party withholding the wages was both an agent and had control over the payment of wages.” Rekhter, 180 Wn.2d at 123 (citing Ellerman v. Centerpoint Prepress, Inc., 143 Wn. | 3 | 2014–2020 |
Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017This court construes the statute liberally in order to “protect employee wages and assure payment.” Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152, 159 , 961 P.2d 371 (1998). ¶90 In Wingert v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., the court held that an employer’s failure to provide its employees with rest periods was a wage violation. 104 Wn. 2014Rekhter , like most of our chapter 49.52 RCW cases over its long history, never describes the act as the “wage rebate act.”See, e.g., Morgan v. Kingen, 166 Wn.2d 526 , 210 P.3d 995 (2009); Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152 , 961 P.2d 371 (1998); State v. Carter, 18 Wn.2d 590 , 140 P.2d 298 , 142 P.2d 403 (1943). f35 In Rekhter , we held that “in order to prevail on a wage claim, the employee must show that the party withholding the wages was both an agent and had control over the payment of wages.” Rekhter, 180 Wn.2d at 123 (citing Ellerman v. Centerpoint Prepress, Inc., 143 Wn. | 3 | 2014–2020 |
Lawrence Hill, Adam Wise, And Robert Miller, Res. v. Garda Cl Northwest, Inc., App.
green
2 sentences2024If this court does not treat this as a wage violation, it is unclear what recourse the Plaintiffs would have. 198 Wn. 2018Hill, 198 Wash. App. at 364 -66 , 394 P.3d 390 . *573 ¶ 41 Whether an award of double exemplary damages under RCW 49.52.070 and an award of prejudgment interest result in an impermissible double recovery is a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. | 2 | 2018–2024 |
Ellerman v. Centerpoint Prepress, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014Rekhter , like most of our chapter 49.52 RCW cases over its long history, never describes the act as the “wage rebate act.”See, e.g., Morgan v. Kingen, 166 Wn.2d 526 , 210 P.3d 995 (2009); Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152 , 961 P.2d 371 (1998); State v. Carter, 18 Wn.2d 590 , 140 P.2d 298 , 142 P.2d 403 (1943). f35 In Rekhter , we held that “in order to prevail on a wage claim, the employee must show that the party withholding the wages was both an agent and had control over the payment of wages.” Rekhter, 180 Wn.2d at 123 (citing Ellerman v. Centerpoint Prepress, Inc., 143 Wn. 2014In Rekhter, we held that "in order to prevail on a wage claim, the employee must show that the party withholding the wages was both an agent and had control over the payment of wages." Rekhter, 180 Wn.2d at 123 (citing Ellerman v. Centerpoint Prepress, Inc., 143 Wn.2d 514, 522-23 , 22 P.3d 795 (2001)). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Department of Labor & Industries v. Overnite Transportation Co.
green
2 sentences2024App. 24 , 834 P.2d 638 (1992) controls the outcome here and held that DLI could initiate a lawsuit without assignment 15 No. 39459-0-III Dep’t L&I v. Cannabis Green, LLC, et al. of a wage claim. 2024Id. at 36 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.
green
2 sentences2024Id. 2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Wingert v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2017App. 583, 588 , 13 P.3d 677 (2000). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
LaCoursiere v. CamWest Development, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017The statute does not define “wage,” but “another related wage statute, the Minimum Wage Act, chapter 49.46 RCW, broadly defines ‘wage’ as ‘compensation due to an employee by reason of employment.’” LaC oursiere v. CamWest Dev., Inc., 181 Wn.2d 734, 742 , 339 P.3d 963 (2014) (quoting RCW 49.46.010(7)). 2017The statute does not define “wage,” but “another related wage statute, the Minimum Wage Act, chapter 49.46 RCW, broadly defines ‘wage’ as ‘compensation due to an employee by reason of employment.’” LaC oursiere v. CamWest Dev., Inc., 181 Wn.2d 734, 742 , 339 P.3d 963 (2014) (quoting RCW 49.46.010(7)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Iverson v. Snohomish County
green
1 sentence2017It claims that the court made this distinction in Iverson v. Snohomish County, 117 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Morgan v. Kingen
green
1 sentence2014Rekhter , like most of our chapter 49.52 RCW cases over its long history, never describes the act as the “wage rebate act.”See, e.g., Morgan v. Kingen, 166 Wn.2d 526 , 210 P.3d 995 (2009); Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152 , 961 P.2d 371 (1998); State v. Carter, 18 Wn.2d 590 , 140 P.2d 298 , 142 P.2d 403 (1943). f35 In Rekhter , we held that “in order to prevail on a wage claim, the employee must show that the party withholding the wages was both an agent and had control over the payment of wages.” Rekhter, 180 Wn.2d at 123 (citing Ellerman v. Centerpoint Prepress, Inc., 143 Wn. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Morgan v. Kingen
green
1 sentence2014Rekhter , like most of our chapter 49.52 RCW cases over its long history, never describes the act as the “wage rebate act.”See, e.g., Morgan v. Kingen, 166 Wn.2d 526 , 210 P.3d 995 (2009); Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152 , 961 P.2d 371 (1998); State v. Carter, 18 Wn.2d 590 , 140 P.2d 298 , 142 P.2d 403 (1943). f35 In Rekhter , we held that “in order to prevail on a wage claim, the employee must show that the party withholding the wages was both an agent and had control over the payment of wages.” Rekhter, 180 Wn.2d at 123 (citing Ellerman v. Centerpoint Prepress, Inc., 143 Wn. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Carter
green
2 sentences2014Rekhter , like most of our chapter 49.52 RCW cases over its long history, never describes the act as the “wage rebate act.”See, e.g., Morgan v. Kingen, 166 Wn.2d 526 , 210 P.3d 995 (2009); Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152 , 961 P.2d 371 (1998); State v. Carter, 18 Wn.2d 590 , 140 P.2d 298 , 142 P.2d 403 (1943). f35 In Rekhter , we held that “in order to prevail on a wage claim, the employee must show that the party withholding the wages was both an agent and had control over the payment of wages.” Rekhter, 180 Wn.2d at 123 (citing Ellerman v. Centerpoint Prepress, Inc., 143 Wn. 2014Rekhter , like most of our chapter 49.52 RCW cases over its long history, never describes the act as the “wage rebate act.”See, e.g., Morgan v. Kingen, 166 Wn.2d 526 , 210 P.3d 995 (2009); Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152 , 961 P.2d 371 (1998); State v. Carter, 18 Wn.2d 590 , 140 P.2d 298 , 142 P.2d 403 (1943). f35 In Rekhter , we held that “in order to prevail on a wage claim, the employee must show that the party withholding the wages was both an agent and had control over the payment of wages.” Rekhter, 180 Wn.2d at 123 (citing Ellerman v. Centerpoint Prepress, Inc., 143 Wn. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.