Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.170 (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) The director, in the adoption of rules governing suspensions for cause, shall not authorize an appointing authority to suspend an employee for more than fifteen calendar days as a single penalty or more than thirty calendar days in any one calendar year as an accumulation of several penalties. The director shall require that the appointing authority give written notice to the employee not later than one day after the suspension takes effect, stating the reasons for and the duration thereof.

(2) Any employee who is reduced, dismissed, suspended, or demoted, after completing his or her probationary period of service as provided by the rules of the director, or any employee who is adversely affected by a violation of the state civil service law, chapter 41.06 RCW [this chapter], or rules adopted under it, shall have the right to appeal, either individually or through his or her authorized representative, not later than thirty days after the effective date of such action to the Washington personnel resources board. The employee shall be furnished with specified charges in writing when a reduction, dismissal, suspension, or demotion action is taken. Such appeal shall be in writing. Decisions of the Washington personnel resources board on appeals filed after June 30, 2005, shall be final and not subject to further appeal.

(3) Any employee whose position has been exempted after July 1, 1993, shall have the right to appeal, either individually or through his or her authorized representative, not later than thirty days after the effective date of such action to the Washington personnel resources board. If the position being exempted is vacant, the exclusive bargaining unit representative may act in lieu of an employee for the purposes of appeal.

(4) An employee incumbent in a position at the time of its allocation or reallocation, or the agency utilizing the position, may appeal the allocation or reallocation to the Washington personnel resources board. Notice of such appeal must be filed in writing within thirty days of the action from which appeal is taken.

(5) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section do not apply to any employee who is subject to the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement negotiated under RCW 41.80.001 and 41.80.010 through 41.80.130.

[ 2011 1st sp.s. c 43 s 415; 2009 c 534 s 3; 2002 c 354 s 213; 1993 c 281 s 31; 1981 c 311 s 19; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 43 s 3; 1961 c 1 s 17 (Initiative Measure No. 207, approved November 8, 1960).]

Notes:

Effective date—Purpose—2011 1st sp.s. c 43: See notes following RCW 43.19.003.

Finding—Intent—2009 c 534: See note following RCW 41.06.133.

Appeals filed on or before June 30, 2005—2002 c 354: "The transfer of the powers, duties, and functions of the personnel appeals board to the personnel resources board under *RCW 41.06.111 and the transfer of jurisdiction for appeals filed under section 213, chapter 354, Laws of 2002 after June 30, 2005, shall not affect the right of an appellant to have an appeal filed on or before June 30, 2005, resolved by the personnel appeals board in accordance with the authorities, rules, and procedures that were established under chapter 41.64 RCW as it existed before July 1, 2004." [ 2002 c 354 s 214.]

*Reviser's note: RCW 41.06.111 was repealed by 2011 1st sp.s. c 43 s 478.

Short title—Headings, captions not law—Severability—Effective dates—2002 c 354: See RCW 41.80.907 through 41.80.910.

Effective date—1993 c 281: See note following RCW 41.06.022.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 31 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: Punton v. City of Seattle Pub. Saf. Comm'n, 650 P.2d 1138 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Punton v. City of Seattle Pub. Saf. Comm'n, 650 P.2d 1138 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “170 are substantially identical to those followed in Punton's case, for RCW 41.”

Ticeson v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 576 P.2d 78 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 7× “Pursuant to RCW 41.06.170, she filed a notice of appeal and received a hearing before *491 the Personnel Board.”

Gogerty v. Dep't of Institutions, 426 P.2d 476 (Wash. 1967). · cites it 4× “RCW 41.06.170. To assure a fair and comprehensive hearing *6 before the personnel board, the legislature surrounded the proceeding with such basic due process safeguards as the right to timely notice, the requirement of sworn testimony, the right to counsel, the right to…”

Reninger v. Dept. of Corr., 901 P.2d 325 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “The Civil Service Law and these regulations give civil service employees the right to appeal a dismissal or demotion or any violation of civil service or merit system rules to the State Personnel Appeals Board (PAB).”

Lumpkin v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 581 P.2d 1060 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “At the time of her reversion, RCW 41.06.170(2) conferred upon an employee a right to an appeal from a reduction, dismissal, suspension or demotion.”

Reninger v. Dep't of Corr., 79 Wash. App. 623 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “100; RCW 41.06.170(2); WAC 358-20-010 and -020; Goodman v.”

Giles v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 583 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 2× “The Superior Court upheld the action of the Board. *460 Appellant first contends that the Board lost jurisdiction of his appeal by failing to hold the required hearing within the 30-day period applicable at the time he filed his appeal.”

Wahler v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 582 P.2d 534 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, his appeal to the Personnel Board was untimely, and the Board had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the merits of his appeal. Further, since he was no longer an "employee" in 1972, he no longer had any rights under RCW 41.”

Dunaway v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 579 P.2d 362 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 4× “The two issues certified are: (1) Does the Personnel Board have the statutory authority to impose a suspension on a state employee of 5 months' duration for insubordination, or is the board limited in its power of suspension by RCW 41.06.170? (2) Where a dismissed employee is…”

Adams v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 683 P.2d 1133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “130(1)(a) provides: “Within thirty days after the recording of the order and the mailing thereof, the employee may appeal the decision and order of the board on appeals made pursuant to RCW 41.06.170(2), as now or hereafter amended, to the superior court of Thurston county on…”

Milligan v. Thompson, 953 P.2d 112 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “The Respondents contend that employees need not exhaust administrative remedies when bringing an action under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination, Title VII, or 42 U.”

Eagan v. Spellman, 581 P.2d 1038 (Wash. 1978). “020(g), or that her employment under the terms of the King County ordinance constituted anything other than employment terminable at will as distinguished from employment terminable for cause.”

Show all 31 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.170(1) — 1 case

Dunaway v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 579 P.2d 362 (Wash. 1978). “The two issues certified are: (1) Does the Personnel Board have the statutory authority to impose a suspension on a state employee of 5 months' duration for insubordination, or is the board limited in its power of suspension by RCW 41.06.170? (2) Where a dismissed employee is…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.170(2) — 21 cases

Reninger v. Dept. of Corr., 901 P.2d 325 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “The Civil Service Law and these regulations give civil service employees the right to appeal a dismissal or demotion or any violation of civil service or merit system rules to the State Personnel Appeals Board (PAB).”

Lumpkin v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 581 P.2d 1060 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “At the time of her reversion, RCW 41.06.170(2) conferred upon an employee a right to an appeal from a reduction, dismissal, suspension or demotion.”

Reninger v. Dep't of Corr., 79 Wash. App. 623 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “100; RCW 41.06.170(2); WAC 358-20-010 and -020; Goodman v.”

Gogerty v. Dep't of Institutions, 426 P.2d 476 (Wash. 1967). “RCW 41.06.170. To assure a fair and comprehensive hearing *6 before the personnel board, the legislature surrounded the proceeding with such basic due process safeguards as the right to timely notice, the requirement of sworn testimony, the right to counsel, the right to…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.170(3) — 3 cases

Gehr v. South Puget Sound Cmty. Coll., 155 Wash. App. 527 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

Gehr v. South Puget Sound Cmty. Coll., 228 P.3d 823 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

Westover v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash. 2025).

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.