Wash. Rev. Code » Title 28A · Chapter 28A.405
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.300 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In the event it is determined that there is probable cause or causes for a teacher, principal, supervisor, superintendent, or other certificated employee, holding a position as such with the school district, hereinafter referred to as "employee", to be discharged or otherwise adversely affected in his or her contract status, such employee shall be notified in writing of that decision, which notification shall specify the probable cause or causes for such action. Such determinations of probable cause for certificated employees, other than the superintendent, shall be made by the superintendent. Such notices shall be served upon that employee personally, or by certified or registered mail, or by leaving a copy of the notice at the house of his or her usual abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then resident therein. Every such employee so notified, at his or her request made in writing and filed with the president, chair of the board or secretary of the board of directors of the district within ten days after receiving such notice, shall be granted opportunity for a hearing pursuant to RCW 28A.405.310 to determine whether or not there is sufficient cause or causes for his or her discharge or other adverse action against his or her contract status.
In the event any such notice or opportunity for hearing is not timely given, or in the event cause for discharge or other adverse action is not established by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing, such employee shall not be discharged or otherwise adversely affected in his or her contract status for the causes stated in the original notice for the duration of his or her contract.
If such employee does not request a hearing as provided herein, such employee may be discharged or otherwise adversely affected as provided in the notice served upon the employee.
Transfer to a subordinate certificated position as that procedure is set forth in RCW 28A.405.230 or 28A.405.245 shall not be construed as a discharge or other adverse action against contract status for the purposes of this section.
[ 2010 c 235 s 305; 1990 c 33 s 395; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 114 s 2; 1973 c 49 s 1; 1969 ex.s. c 34 s 13; 1969 ex.s. c 223 s 28A.58.450. Prior: 1961 c 241 s 2. Formerly RCW 28A.58.450, 28.58.450.]

Notes:

Finding—2010 c 235: See note following RCW 28A.405.245.
Savings—Severability-1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 114: See notes following RCW 28A.400.010.
Minimum criteria for the evaluation of certificated employees—Four-level rating evaluation system—Procedures—Steering committee—Implementation—Reports—Comprehensive performance evaluation: RCW 28A.405.100.
Transfer of administrator to subordinate certificated position—Procedure: RCW 28A.405.230.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases, 1990–2020 · leading case: Busey v. Richland Sch. Dist., 172 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (E.D. Wash. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Busey v. Richland Sch. Dist., 172 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (E.D. Wash. 2016). · cites it 15× “210 and RCW 28A.405.300.” ECF No. 78-3. Based on the Board’s review of all information from Mr.”
Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, 261 P.3d 145 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 6× “¶ 10 On July 5, 2007, pursuant to RCW 28A.405.300, the District notified Vinson of probable cause for discharge.”
Giedra v. Mount Adams Sch. Dist. No. 209, 110 P.3d 232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 11× “Giedra and Caryl Spencer) under RCW 28A.405.300 and RCW 28A.405.310. Further, the District appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the teachers on the issue of the District's repayment claims.”
Sneed v. Barna, 912 P.2d 1035 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Sneed sued the District based upon a number of causes of action, including that: (1) the District’s actions constituted an adverse change in her contract status without proper notice and an opportunity for a hearing in violation of RCW 28A.405.300; (2) the District deprived her…”
Sneed v. Barna, 912 P.2d 1035 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Sneed sued the District based upon a number of causes of action, including that: (1) the District's actions constituted an adverse change in her contract status without proper notice and an opportunity for a hearing in violation of RCW 28A.405.300; (2) the District deprived her…”
Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, 225 P.3d 379 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “¶6 On July 5, 2007, the District issued to Vinson a letter of probable cause for discharge from employment pursuant to RCW 28A.405.300. 3 In the letter, the District stated that its investigation provided probable cause for termination, based on (1) retaliation and harassment…”
McLain v. Kent Sch. Dist. No. 415, 314 P.3d 435 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “310(4) states, in pertinent part: In the event that an employee requests a hearing pursuant to RCW 28A.405.300[ 7 ] or 28A.405.210, a hearing officer shall be appointed in the following manner: Within fifteen days following the receipt of any such request the board of directors…”
Shearer v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 942 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (W.D. Wash. 2013). “Jarvis determined that plaintiff was no longer an employee in 2011, and subject to notice and an opportunity to be heard, whether pursuant to Loudermill or pursuant to RCW 28A.405.300, et seq. It would not have been clear to a reasonable person in Dr.”
Giedra v. Mt. Adams Sch. Dist. No. 209, 126 Wash. App. 840 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 11× “Giedra and Caryl Spencer) under RCW 28A.405.300 and RCW 28A.405.310. Further, the District appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the teachers on the issue of the District’s repayment claims.”
Hall v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 831 P.2d 1128 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “" 8 In Saltis there was no evidence as to whether the Director had been served.”
Griffith v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 266 P.3d 932 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Despite these directions, it is undisputed that Griffith and Quarto refused to give the test.”
Schlosser v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 333 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “18 If a teacher’s deficiencies are remediable, the district must also provide the teacher with “a reasonable program for improvement.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
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.