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

Wash. Rev. Code § 41.14.120 (2026)

Removal, suspension, demotion, or discharge—Procedure—Appeal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No person in the classified civil service who has been permanently appointed or inducted into civil service under provisions of this chapter, shall be removed, suspended, demoted, or discharged except for cause, and only upon written accusation of the appointing power or any citizen or taxpayer; a written statement of which accusation, in general terms, shall be served upon the accused, and a duplicate filed with the commission. Any person so removed, suspended, discharged, or demoted may within ten days from the time of his or her removal, suspension, discharge, or demotion file with the commission a written demand for an investigation, whereupon the commission shall conduct such investigation. Upon receipt of the written demand for an investigation, the commission shall within ten days set a date for a public hearing which will be held within thirty days from the date of receipt. The investigation shall be confined to the determination of the question of whether the removal, suspension, demotion, or discharge was made in good faith for cause. After such investigation the commission shall render a written decision within ten days and may affirm the removal, suspension, demotion, or discharge, or if it finds that removal, suspension, demotion, or discharge was not made in good faith for cause, shall order the immediate reinstatement or reemployment of such person in the office, place, position, or employment from which he or she was removed, suspended, demoted, or discharged, which reinstatement shall, if the commission so provides, be retroactive, and entitle such person to pay or compensation from the time of the removal, suspension, demotion, or discharge. The commission upon such investigation, in lieu of affirming a removal, suspension, demotion, or discharge, may modify the order by directing the removal, suspension, demotion, or discharge without pay, for a given period, and subsequent restoration to duty, or demotion in classification, grade, or pay. The findings of the commission shall be certified, in writing to the appointing power, and shall be forthwith enforced by such officer.
All investigations made by the commission pursuant to this section shall be by public hearing, after reasonable notice to the accused of the time and place thereof, at which hearing the accused shall be afforded an opportunity of appearing in person and by counsel, and presenting his or her defense. If order of removal, suspension, demotion, or discharge is concurred in by the commission or a majority thereof, the accused may appeal therefrom to the superior court of the county wherein he or she resides. Such appeal shall be taken by serving the commission, within thirty days after the entry of its order, a written notice of appeal, stating the grounds thereof, and demanding that a certified transcript of the record and of all papers on file in the office of the commission affecting or relating to its order, be filed by the commission with the court. The commission shall, within ten days after the filing of the notice, make, certify, and file such transcript with the court. The court shall thereupon proceed to hear and determine the appeal in a summary manner. Such hearing shall be confined to the determination of whether the order of removal, suspension, demotion, or discharge made by the commission, was or was not made in good faith for cause, and no appeal shall be taken except upon such ground or grounds. The decision of the superior court may be appealed to the supreme court or the court of appeals.
[ 2012 c 117 s 15; 1984 c 199 s 1; 1982 c 133 s 1; 1971 c 81 s 102; 1959 c 1 s 12 (Initiative Measure No. 23, approved November 4, 1958).]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2021 · leading case: Pierce Cnty. Sheriff v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 658 P.2d 648 (Wash. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pierce Cnty. Sheriff v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 658 P.2d 648 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 3× “If this argument is correct, then the lower court should never even have reached the issue of whether the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious. There are three potential avenues of appeal from the decision of an administrative agency.”
Payne v. Mount, 705 P.2d 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 9× “The Commission responded 3 days later, denying the *631 request as untimely under RCW 41.14.120 6 and WCCSCR 11, § 2. 7 Payne was acquitted of indecent liberties in March 1982.”
Cowles Publ'g Co. v. State Patrol, 748 P.2d 597 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “[2] Internal affairs investigative files are maintained separately from the officer's personnel file, although a notice of sanction is placed in the personnel file. The Washington State Patrol disseminates information concerning sanctions through its teletype network to each of…”
In Re Smith, 639 P.2d 779 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 7× “— The pivotal issue presented by this appeal is whether RCW 41.14.120 1 empowers a civil service commis *944 sion to uphold the discharge of a deputy for reasons other than those advanced by the sheriff.”
Greig v. Metzler, 653 P.2d 1346 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “RCW 41.14.120 provides that an appeal to the superior court is a summary matter.”
Rose v. Erickson, 721 P.2d 969 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “John Rose and the Union applied for a writ of mandate on February 19, 1985, asking that Sheriff Erickson be compelled to process the grievance under the procedures provided by the agreement and that the Commission be prohibited from conducting an investigation under RCW…”
Eiden v. Snohomish Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 533 P.2d 426 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 10× “[2] *34 Thereafter, acting pursuant to RCW 41.14.120, Eiden timely appealed his discharge to the Snohomish County Civil Service Commission.”
Wayne Goding, Resp/cross-app v. King Cnty. Sheriff's Off., App/cross-resp., 366 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “II ¶52 The sheriff contends that “[t]he Superior Court erred in entering two orders ruling that the Civil Service Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in finding that the King County sheriff’s discipline of Deputy Wayne Goding was in good faith for cause under RCW…”
Eiden v. Snohomish Cnty. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 533 P.2d 426 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 10× “2 *34 Thereafter, acting pursuant to RCW 41.14.120, Eiden timely appealed his discharge to the Snohomish County Civil Service Commission.”
Cowles Publ'g Co. v. State Patrol, 724 P.2d 379 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “070 (Washington State Patrol); RCW 41.14.120 (county sheriffs); and RCW 41.”
Wayne Goding, Resp/cross-app v. King Cnty. Sheriff's Off., App/cross-resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “The court may not disturb the decision of the commission unless that 1 RCW 41.14.120. No. 72890-3-1/2 decision was made arbitrarily or capriciously.”
City of Medina v. Skinner, 336 P.3d 1172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 41.14.120 (sheriff’s office); RCW 41.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.