Wash. Rev. Code » Title 41 · Chapter 41.14
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 41.14.110 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The tenure of every person holding an office, place, position, or employment under the provisions of this chapter shall be only during good behavior, and any such person may be removed or discharged, suspended without pay, demoted, or reduced in rank, or deprived of vacation privileges or other special privileges for any of the following reasons:
(1) Incompetency, inefficiency, or inattention to, or dereliction of duty;
(2) Dishonesty, intemperance, immoral conduct, insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public, or a fellow employee, or any other act of omission or commission tending to injure the public service; or any other willful failure on the part of the employee to properly conduct himself or herself; or any willful violation of the provisions of this chapter or the rules and regulations to be adopted hereunder;
(3) Mental or physical unfitness for the position which the employee holds;
(4) Dishonest, disgraceful, or prejudicial conduct;
(5) Drunkenness or use of intoxicating liquors, narcotics, or any other habit forming drug, liquid, or preparation to such extent that the use thereof interferes with the efficiency or mental or physical fitness of the employee, or which precludes the employee from properly performing the function and duties of any position under civil service;
(6) Conviction of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude;
(7) Any other act or failure to act which in the judgment of the civil service commission is sufficient to show the offender to be an unsuitable and unfit person to be employed in the public service.
[ 2012 c 117 s 14; 1959 c 1 s 11 (Initiative Measure No. 23, approved November 4, 1958).]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1975–2009 · leading case: Kitsap Deputy Sheriff's Guild v. Kitsap Co., 219 P.3d 675 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kitsap Deputy Sheriff's Guild v. Kitsap Co., 219 P.3d 675 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 2× “" RCW 41.14.110 does require that deputy sheriffs serve only during good behavior but provides dismissal as one option among many, including suspension, demotion, or deprivation of vacation privileges.”
Kitsap Cnty. Deputy Sheriff's Guild v. Kitsap Cnty., 167 Wash. 2d 428 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 2× “” RCW 41.14.110 does require that deputy sheriffs serve only during good behavior but provides dismissal *439 as one option among many, including suspension, demotion, or deprivation of vacation privileges.”
Greig v. Metzler, 653 P.2d 1346 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “The tenure of every person holding an office, place, position, or employment under the provisions of this chapter shall be only during good behavior, and any such person may be removed or discharged, suspended without pay, demoted, or reduced in rank, or deprived of vacation…”
Payne v. Mount, 705 P.2d 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “*636 Notice of Dismissal We shall also consider Payne's claim that his notice of dismissal, which merely listed the grounds for discharge set forth in RCW 41.14.110 and WCCSCR 9, was inadequate.”
McConnell v. City of Seattle, 722 P.2d 121 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “The letter did not specifically refer to the allegations of sexual abuse, but rather cited the reasons for discharge set forth in a Whatcom County Civil Service Commission rule and RCW 41.14.110, the statute addressing the grounds for depriving employees of a county sheriff of…”
Eiden v. Snohomish Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 533 P.2d 426 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 3× “The commission argues that such cause may be established by its claim that Eiden is incompetent within the meaning of RCW 41.14.110. [8] In addition, *41 the commission argues that there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that the commission did…”
Eiden v. Snohomish Cnty. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 533 P.2d 426 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 3× “The commission argues that such cause may be established by its claim that Eiden is incompetent within the meaning of RCW 41.14.110. 8 In ad *41 dition, the commission argues that there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the commission did…”
In Re Smith, 639 P.2d 779 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “080 is the identical counterpart to RCW 41.14.110 (sheriff's office context).”
Erickson v. Spokane Cnty. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 39 Wash. App. 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “He appealed, and following a hearing, the Spokane County Civil Service Commission, pursuant to RCW 41.14.110, in lieu of affirming the removal, directed a 30-day suspension.”
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.