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

Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.340 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any appeal to the superior court by an employee shall be heard by the superior court without a jury. Such appeal shall be heard expeditiously. The superior court's review shall be confined to the verbatim transcript of the hearing and the papers and exhibits admitted into evidence at the hearing, except that in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure not shown in the transcript or exhibits and in cases of alleged abridgment of the employee's constitutional free speech rights, the court may take additional testimony on the alleged procedural irregularities or abridgment of free speech rights. The court shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs offered by the parties.
The court may affirm the decision of the board or hearing officer or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the employee may have been prejudiced because the decision was:
(1) In violation of constitutional provisions; or
(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board or hearing officer; or
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or
(4) Affected by other error of law; or
(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted and the public policy contained in the act of the legislature authorizing the decision or order; or
(6) Arbitrary or capricious.
[1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 114 s 6; 1969 ex.s. c 34 s 15; 1969 ex.s. c 223 s 28A.58.480. Prior: 1961 c 241 s 5. Formerly RCW 28A.58.480, 28.58.480.]

Notes:

Savings—Severability—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 114: See notes following RCW 28A.400.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1993–2016 · leading case: Campbell v. Tacoma Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 10, 370 P.3d 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Campbell v. Tacoma Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 10, 370 P.3d 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “Substantial Evidence ¶25 The District next argues that the superior court erred because it failed to give the appropriate deference and *887 apply the correct standard of review to the hearing officer’s unchallenged findings of fact regarding Campbell’s failure to report her…”
Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, 261 P.3d 145 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “We granted leave to both parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the applicability of RCW 28A.405.340 and City of Seattle v. Holifield, 170 Wash.”
Riley-Hordyk v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 350 P.3d 681 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “See RCW 28A.405.340. We review the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law; we give no deference to the superior court’s decision.”
Griffith v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 266 P.3d 932 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 28A.405.340. ¶22 A court reviewing the factual determinations of a hearing officer considers whether those determinations are clearly erroneous.”
Schlosser v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 333 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Statutory Grounds for Nonrenewal of Teacher’s Contract for Cause ¶24 Our legislature has given a public school superintendent authority to not renew a certificated employee’s contract based on probable cause. RCW 28A.405.”
McCorkle v. Sunnyside Sch. Dist. No. 201, 848 P.2d 1308 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “1 The other subsections of RCW 28A.405.340 provide for reversal if the decision was: "(1) In violation of constitutional provisions; or "(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board or hearing officer; or "(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the entire…”
John Cummings v. Seattle Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 28A.405.340. The court may "reverse the decision ifthe substantial rights of the employee may have been prejudiced because the decision was:" (1) In violation of constitutional provisions; or (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board or hearing…”
Collin Williams v. Seattle Pub. Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “EVALUATION CRITERIA According to RCW 28A.405.340, a hearing officer's decision to uphold an adverse action regarding a teacher's contract may be overturned only ifthe decision: (1) violates constitutional provisions, (2) exceeds the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.340(1) — 1 case
Campbell v. Tacoma Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 10, 370 P.3d 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Substantial Evidence ¶25 The District next argues that the superior court erred because it failed to give the appropriate deference and *887 apply the correct standard of review to the hearing officer’s unchallenged findings of fact regarding Campbell’s failure to report her…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.340(3) — 1 case
McCorkle v. Sunnyside Sch. Dist. No. 201, 848 P.2d 1308 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “1 The other subsections of RCW 28A.405.340 provide for reversal if the decision was: "(1) In violation of constitutional provisions; or "(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board or hearing officer; or "(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the entire…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.340(4) — 1 case
Riley-Hordyk v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 350 P.3d 681 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “See RCW 28A.405.340. We review the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law; we give no deference to the superior court’s decision.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.340(5) — 2 cases
Campbell v. Tacoma Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 10, 370 P.3d 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Substantial Evidence ¶25 The District next argues that the superior court erred because it failed to give the appropriate deference and *887 apply the correct standard of review to the hearing officer’s unchallenged findings of fact regarding Campbell’s failure to report her…”
Riley-Hordyk v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 350 P.3d 681 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “See RCW 28A.405.340. We review the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law; we give no deference to the superior court’s decision.”
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.