Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) After filing a notice of a claim with the director, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, any person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter or any rule adopted under this chapter may bring suit in any court of competent jurisdiction of the county in which the claim arose, or in which either the plaintiff or respondent resides, without regard to the amount in controversy and without regard to exhaustion of any alternative administrative remedies provided in this chapter. No such action may be commenced later than three years after the date of the violation giving rise to the right of action. In any such action the court may award to the prevailing party, in addition to costs and disbursements, reasonable attorney fees at trial and appeal.
(2) In any action under subsection (1) of this section, if the court finds that the respondent has violated this chapter or any rule adopted under this chapter, it may award damages up to and including an amount equal to the amount of actual damages, or statutory damages of five hundred dollars per plaintiff per violation, whichever is greater, or other equitable relief.
(3) Without regard to other remedies provided in this chapter, a person having a claim against the farm labor contractor for any violation of this chapter may bring suit against the farm labor contractor and the surety bond or security deposit filed by the contractor pursuant to RCW 19.30.040, in any court of competent jurisdiction of the county in which the claim arose, or in which either the claimant or contractor resides.
(4) An action upon the bond or security deposit shall be commenced by serving and filing the summons and complaint within three years from the date of expiration or cancellation of the bond or expiration or cancellation of the license, whichever is sooner, or in the case of a security deposit, within three years of the date of expiration or revocation of the license.
(5) A copy of the summons and complaint in any such action shall be served upon the director at the time of commencement of the action and the director shall maintain a record, available for public inspection, of all suits so commenced. Such service shall constitute service on the farm labor contractor and the surety for suit upon the bond and the director shall transmit the complaint or a copy thereof to the contractor at the address listed in his or her application and to the surety within forty-eight hours after it has been received.
(6) The surety upon the bond may, upon notice to the director and the parties, tender to the clerk of the court having jurisdiction of the action an amount equal to the claims or the amount of the bond less the amount of judgments, if any, previously satisfied therefrom and to the extent of such tender the surety upon the bond shall be exonerated.
(7) If the actions commenced and pending at any one time exceed the amount of the bond then unimpaired, the claims shall be satisfied from the bond in the following order:
(a) Wages, including employee benefits;
(b) Other contractual damage owed to the employee;
(c) Any costs and attorneys' fees the claimant may be entitled to recover by contract or statute.
(8) If any final judgment impairs the bond so furnished so that there is not in effect a bond undertaking in the full amount prescribed by the director, the director shall suspend the license of the contractor until the bond liability in the required amount unimpaired by unsatisfied judgment claims has been furnished. If such bond becomes fully impaired, a new bond must be furnished.
(9) A claimant against a security deposit shall be entitled to damages under subsection (2) of this section. If the farm labor contractor has filed other security with the director in lieu of a surety bond, any person having an unsatisfied final judgment against the contractor for any violation of this chapter may execute upon the security deposit held by the director by serving a certified copy of the unsatisfied final judgment by registered or certified mail upon the director. Upon the receipt of service of such certified copy, the director shall pay or order paid from the deposit, through the registry of the court which rendered judgment, towards the amount of the unsatisfied judgment. The priority of payment by the director shall be the order of receipt by the director, but the director shall have no liability for payment in excess of the amount of the deposit.
[ 1987 c 216 s 5; 1986 c 197 s 18; 1985 c 280 s 16.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1993–2013 · leading case: Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 286 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2012).
Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 286 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 15× “§ 1854 (c); RCW 19.30.170. As the Workers note, the AWPA is explicitly intended to supplement state law.”
Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 669 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 8× “Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170 (2). Reading the provision in its entirety and giving effect to all the language of the provision, it is apparent that the Washington Legislature meant to instruct a court that it “may” choose between actual damages and statutory damages of “five…”
Smoke v. City of Seattle, 902 P.2d 678 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “, RCW 19.30.170(1) (any person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter.”
Saucedo v. NW Mgmt. & Realty Servs., Inc., 290 F.R.D. 671 (E.D. Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “020 (imposing joint and several liability upon “any person who knowingly uses the services of an unlicensed farm labor contractor”).”
Escobar v. Baker, 814 F. Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1993). “RCW 19.30.170 states: After filing a notice of claim with the director, .”
Jose Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc, 499 F. App'x 735 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “We remand the issue of attorneys’ fees under the FLCA, Wash. Rev.Code § 19.30.170(1), for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170(1) — 4 cases
Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 286 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2012). “§ 1854 (c); RCW 19.30.170. As the Workers note, the AWPA is explicitly intended to supplement state law.”
Smoke v. City of Seattle, 902 P.2d 678 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “, RCW 19.30.170(1) (any person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter.”
Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 669 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2011). “Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170 (2). Reading the provision in its entirety and giving effect to all the language of the provision, it is apparent that the Washington Legislature meant to instruct a court that it “may” choose between actual damages and statutory damages of “five…”
Jose Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc, 499 F. App'x 735 (9th Cir. 2012). “We remand the issue of attorneys’ fees under the FLCA, Wash. Rev.Code § 19.30.170(1), for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170(2) — 4 cases
Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 286 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2012). “§ 1854 (c); RCW 19.30.170. As the Workers note, the AWPA is explicitly intended to supplement state law.”
Saucedo v. NW Mgmt. & Realty Servs., Inc., 290 F.R.D. 671 (E.D. Wash. 2013). “020 (imposing joint and several liability upon “any person who knowingly uses the services of an unlicensed farm labor contractor”).”
Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 669 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2011). “Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170 (2). Reading the provision in its entirety and giving effect to all the language of the provision, it is apparent that the Washington Legislature meant to instruct a court that it “may” choose between actual damages and statutory damages of “five…”
Jose Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc, 499 F. App'x 735 (9th Cir. 2012). “We remand the issue of attorneys’ fees under the FLCA, Wash. Rev.Code § 19.30.170(1), for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.