Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.310 (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) Any employee receiving a notice of probable cause for discharge or adverse effect in contract status pursuant to RCW 28A.405.300, or any employee, with the exception of provisional employees as defined in RCW 28A.405.220, receiving a notice of probable cause for nonrenewal of contract pursuant to RCW 28A.405.210, shall be granted the opportunity for a hearing pursuant to this section.
(2) In any request for a hearing pursuant to RCW 28A.405.300 or 28A.405.210, the employee may request either an open or closed hearing. The hearing shall be open or closed as requested by the employee, but if the employee fails to make such a request, the hearing officer may determine whether the hearing shall be open or closed.
(3) The employee may engage counsel who shall be entitled to represent the employee at the prehearing conference held pursuant to subsection (5) of this section and at all subsequent proceedings pursuant to this section. At the hearing provided for by this section, the employee may produce such witnesses as he or she may desire.
(4) In the event that an employee requests a hearing pursuant to RCW 28A.405.300 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 of the district or its designee and the employee or employee's designee shall each appoint one nominee. The two nominees shall jointly appoint a hearing officer who shall be a member in good standing of the Washington state bar association or a person adhering to the arbitration standards established by the public employment relations commission and listed on its current roster of arbitrators. Should said nominees fail to agree as to who should be appointed as the hearing officer, either the board of directors or the employee, upon appropriate notice to the other party, may apply to the presiding judge of the superior court for the county in which the district is located for the appointment of such hearing officer, whereupon such presiding judge shall have the duty to appoint a hearing officer who shall, in the judgment of such presiding judge, be qualified to fairly and impartially discharge his or her duties. Nothing herein shall preclude the board of directors and the employee from stipulating as to the identity of the hearing officer in which event the foregoing procedures for the selection of the hearing officer shall be inapplicable. The district shall pay all fees and expenses of any hearing officer selected pursuant to this subsection.
(5) Within five days following the selection of a hearing officer pursuant to subsection (4) of this section, the hearing officer shall schedule a prehearing conference to be held within such five day period, unless the board of directors and employee agree on another date convenient with the hearing officer. The employee shall be given written notice of the date, time, and place of such prehearing conference at least three days prior to the date established for such conference.
(6) The hearing officer shall preside at any prehearing conference scheduled pursuant to subsection (5) of this section and in connection therewith shall:
(a) Issue such subpoenas or subpoenas duces tecum as either party may request at that time or thereafter; and
(b) Authorize the taking of prehearing depositions at the request of either party at that time or thereafter; and
(c) Provide for such additional methods of discovery as may be authorized by the civil rules applicable in the superior courts of the state of Washington; and
(d) Establish the date for the commencement of the hearing, to be within ten days following the date of the prehearing conference, unless the employee requests a continuance, in which event the hearing officer shall give due consideration to such request.
(7) The hearing officer shall preside at any hearing and in connection therewith shall:
(a) Make rulings as to the admissibility of evidence pursuant to the rules of evidence applicable in the superior court of the state of Washington.
(b) Make other appropriate rulings of law and procedure.
(c) Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing transmit in writing to the board and to the employee, findings of fact and conclusions of law and final decision. If the final decision is in favor of the employee, the employee shall be restored to his or her employment position and shall be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees.
(8) Any final decision by the hearing officer to nonrenew the employment contract of the employee, or to discharge the employee, or to take other action adverse to the employee's contract status, as the case may be, shall be based solely upon the cause or causes specified in the notice of probable cause to the employee and shall be established by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing to be sufficient cause or causes for such action.
(9) All subpoenas and prehearing discovery orders shall be enforceable by and subject to the contempt and other equity powers of the superior court of the county in which the school district is located upon petition of any aggrieved party.
(10) A complete record shall be made of the hearing and all orders and rulings of the hearing officer and school board.
[ 1990 c 33 s 396; 1987 c 375 s 1; 1977 ex.s. c 7 s 1; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 114 s 5. Formerly RCW 28A.58.455.]
Notes:
Severability—1977 ex.s. c 7: "If any provision of this 1977 amendatory act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1977 ex.s. c 7 s 2.]
Savings—Severability—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 114: See notes following RCW 28A.400.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases, 1992–2020 · leading case: Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, 261 P.3d 145 (Wash. 2011).
Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, 261 P.3d 145 (Wash. 2011). “114, § 5; RCW 28A.405.310 (formerly RCW 28A.58.455).”
McLain v. Kent Sch. Dist. No. 415, 314 P.3d 435 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “The notice states McLain must contact the District within 10 days to contest the decision through an administrative hearing under RCW 28A.405.310. ¶3 On March 1, Washington Education Association attorney Michael Gawley sent a letter to the District appealing the decision to not…”
Busey v. Richland Sch. Dist., 172 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (E.D. Wash. 2016). “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…”
Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 298 P.3d 741 (Wash. 2013). “33, § 4; current version at RCW 28A.405.310)). We stated, “The closed hearing provision does not specifically exempt anything from disclosure.”
Schlosser v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 333 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 28A.405.310(8) gives Lynda Schlosser a property interest in her contract’s renewal.”
Riley-Hordyk v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 350 P.3d 681 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “210 and RCW 28A.405.310. The continuing contract statute uses the term “probable cause” to describe the cause required for a school district to nonrenew an employee’s contract, and uses the term “sufficient cause” to refer to the cause required to justify the district’s…”
Campbell v. Tacoma Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 10, 370 P.3d 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “3 RCW 28A.405.310. 4 Finding of fact 21 stated, “[Campbell] did not report to Ms.”
Hall v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 831 P.2d 1128 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “455 has been recodified as RCW 28A.405.310. 17 Former RCW 28A.58.455(6)(c).”
Giedra v. Mount Adams Sch. Dist. No. 209, 110 P.3d 232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “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.”
Moldt v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 12 P.3d 1042 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Every such employee so notified, at his or her request made in writing and filed with the president, chair or secretary of the board of directors of the district within ten days after receiving such notice, shall be granted opportunity for hearing pursuant to RCW 28A.405.310 to…”
Petroni v. Bd. of Directors of Deer Park Sch. Dist. No. 414, 113 P.3d 10 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Petroni contends that she was entitled to a hearing under RCW 28A.405.310 because the nonrenewal decision was based on allegations of misconduct.”
James Mclain, Res. v. Kent Sch. Dist., No. 415, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “"1 James McLain timely appealed the decision of the Kent School District (District) to not renew his teaching contract for the 2010-2011 school year but did not comply with the statutory procedure or deadlines to select a hearing officer and schedule a hearing.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.310(1) — 1 case
Petroni v. Bd. of Directors of Deer Park Sch. Dist. No. 414, 113 P.3d 10 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Petroni contends that she was entitled to a hearing under RCW 28A.405.310 because the nonrenewal decision was based on allegations of misconduct.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.310(10) — 1 case
John Cummings v. Seattle Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.310(3) — 1 case
John Cummings v. Seattle Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.310(4) — 5 cases
McLain v. Kent Sch. Dist. No. 415, 314 P.3d 435 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “The notice states McLain must contact the District within 10 days to contest the decision through an administrative hearing under RCW 28A.405.310. ¶3 On March 1, Washington Education Association attorney Michael Gawley sent a letter to the District appealing the decision to not…”
Busey v. Richland Sch. Dist., 172 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (E.D. Wash. 2016). “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…”
James Mclain, Res. v. Kent Sch. Dist., No. 415, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “"1 James McLain timely appealed the decision of the Kent School District (District) to not renew his teaching contract for the 2010-2011 school year but did not comply with the statutory procedure or deadlines to select a hearing officer and schedule a hearing.”
James Busey v. Richland Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2018).
Michael F. Cronin v. Cent. Valley Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.310(5) — 1 case
Michael F. Cronin v. Cent. Valley Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.310(7)(a) — 1 case
John Cummings v. Seattle Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.310(7)(c) — 1 case
Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, 261 P.3d 145 (Wash. 2011). “114, § 5; RCW 28A.405.310 (formerly RCW 28A.58.455).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.310(8) — 2 cases
Schlosser v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 333 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 28A.405.310(8) gives Lynda Schlosser a property interest in her contract’s renewal.”
Busey v. Richland Sch. Dist., 172 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (E.D. Wash. 2016). “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…”
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.