Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.40.010 (2026)

Policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It is the policy of the legislature that employees should be encouraged to disclose, to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, improper governmental actions, and it is the intent of the legislature to protect the rights of state employees making these disclosures, regardless of whether an investigation is initiated under RCW 42.40.040. It is also the policy of the legislature that employees should be encouraged to identify rules warranting review or provide information to the rules review committee, and it is the intent of the legislature to protect the rights of these employees.
[ 2017 c 44 s 1; 1995 c 403 s 508; 1982 c 208 s 1.]

Notes:

Findings—Short title—Intent—1995 c 403: See note following RCW 34.05.328.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2023 · leading case: Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). · cites it 2× “2005); Wash. Rev. Code § 42.40.010 (2004); Wyo. Stat.”
Karstetter v. King Cnty. Corr. Guild, 444 P.3d 1185 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “The Guild's argument undercuts the fundamental purpose of our whistle-blower statutes. Washington's whistle-blower provisions are intended to encourage those with knowledge of institutional wrongs to come forward in order to safeguard the public.”
Dicomes v. State, 782 P.2d 1002 (Wash. 1989). “In determining whether retaliatory discharge for employee whistleblowing activity states a tort claim for wrongful discharge under the public policy exception, courts generally examine the degree of alleged employer wrongdoing, together with the reasonableness of the manner in…”
Wilson v. City of Monroe, 943 P.2d 1134 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “23 RCW 42.40.010; RCW 42.40.020(2). 24 See RCW 42.”
Burton A. Dezihan v. State of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “RCW 42.40.010. In 2008, Burton Dezihan and Don Gillespie filed a whistleblower complaint with the state auditor’s office (Auditor).”
Snell v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash. 2023). “” RCW 42.40.010. Under the statute, a 14 “whistleblower” is defined as an employee who “in good faith reports [or provides information 15 regarding] alleged improper government action” to a public official designated to receive 16 whistleblower reports by the head of a…”
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.