Wash. Rev. Code » Title 41 · Chapter 41.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 41.08.100 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever a position in the classified service becomes vacant, the appointing power, if it desires to fill the vacancy, shall make requisition upon the commission for the name and address of a person eligible for appointment thereto. The commission shall certify the name of the person highest on the eligible list for the class to which the vacant position has been allocated, who is willing to accept employment. If there is no appropriate eligible list for the class, the commission shall certify the name of the person standing highest on said list held appropriate for such class. If more than one vacancy is to be filled an additional name shall be certified for each additional vacancy. The appointing power shall forthwith appoint such person to such vacant position.
Whenever requisition is to be made, or whenever a position is held by a temporary appointee and an eligible list for the class of such position exists, the commission shall forthwith certify the name of the person eligible for appointment to the appointing power, and said appointing power shall forthwith appoint the person so certified to said position. No person so certified shall be laid off, suspended, or given leave of absence from duty, transferred or reduced in pay or grade, except for reasons which will promote the good of the service, specified in writing, and after an opportunity to be heard by the commission and then only with its consent and approval.
To enable the appointing power to exercise a choice in the filling of positions, no appointment, employment or promotion in any position in the classified service shall be deemed complete until after the expiration of a period of three to six months' probationary service, as may be provided in the rules of the civil service commission during which the appointing power may terminate the employment of the person certified to him or her, or it, if during the performance test thus afforded, upon observation or consideration of the performance of duty, the appointing power deems him or her unfit or unsatisfactory for service in the department. Whereupon the appointing power shall designate the person certified as standing next highest on any such list and such person shall likewise enter upon said duties until some person is found who is deemed fit for appointment, employment or promotion for the probationary period provided therefor, whereupon the appointment, employment or promotion shall be deemed to be complete.
[ 2007 c 218 s 7; 1935 c 31 s 11; RRS s 9558-11.]

Notes:

Intent—Finding—2007 c 218: See note following RCW 41.08.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1976–2020 · leading case: Seattle Police Officers Guild v. City of Seattle
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seattle Police Officers Guild v. City of Seattle (2004) Wash. · cites it 2× “Yet the majority brushes aside the absence of any historical support for the rule of five, claiming Local 404’s “approval of the ‘rule of three’ hinged on our interpretation of the language ‘substantially accomplish[es] the purpose’in RCW 41.”
International Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. City of Walla Walla (1978) Wash. · cites it 3× “RCW 41.08.100 provides for a probationary period of appointment "[t]o enable the appointing power to exercise a choice in the filling of positions".”
Crippen v. City of Bellevue (1991) Wash. Ct. App. · cites it 5× “The trial court found that RCW 41.08.100 gave Chief Sterling the authority to not fill a vacancy and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.”
Roberts v. Clark County Fire Protection District No. 4 (1986) Wash. Ct. App. · cites it 4× “However, he contends that because RCW 41.08.100 provides for probationary periods of 3 to 6 months, 2 the 12-month period provided for in the District's regulations is an unlawful extension of the probationary period.”
Bellingham Firefighters Local 106 v. City of Bellingham (1976) Wash. Ct. App. “The method used in the state statute to give the appointing power some choice is a provision that the initial mandatory appointment is probationary for a period of time.”
Seattle Police Officers Guild v. City of Seattle (2002) Wash. Ct. App. “RCW 41.08.100 provides for a probationary period of appointment “[to] enable the appointing power to exercise a choice in filling of positions.”
Seattle Police Officers Guild v. City of Seattle (2002) Wash. Ct. App. “RCW 41.08.100 *1040 provides for a probationary period of appointment "[t]o enable the appointing power to exercise a choice in filling of positions.”
Matson v. City of Tacoma Civil Service Board (1994) Wash. Ct. App. “The rules expressly state that a "[vjacancy” is "an existing position which is not occupied, and for which funds are available and a valid requisition has been received”.”
Seattle Police Officers Guild v. City of Seattle (2004) Wash. · cites it 2× “There was no indication the legislature attempted to eradicate a widely accepted practice by adopting the rule of one in RCW 41.08.100, thereby persuading this court to accept that practice as lawful.”
Seattle Police Officers' Guild v. City of Seattle (2004) Wash. Ct. App. “” 16 In Bellingham, the court upheld an ordinance which allowed the City’s civil service commission to certify the top *458 three eligible candidates for promotion instead of the single top candidate as specified in RCW 41.08.100. The court reasoned that the legislature could…”
Jeremy Vahle, An Individual v. City Of Lakewood, A Municipal Corporation (2020) Wash. Ct. App. “at 831 (quoting RCW 41.08.100). The principles set forth in Local 404 were applied in 2002 when several police officers, who were bypassed for multiple promotions, brought suit against the city of Seattle (Seattle) for its system of promotion.”
SEATTLE POLICE GUILD v. City of Seattle (2004) Wash. Ct. App. “" [16] In Bellingham, the court upheld an ordinance which allowed the City's civil service commission to certify the top three eligible candidates for promotion instead of the single top candidate as specified in RCW 41.08.100. The court reasoned that the Legislature could have…”
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.