Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 42.40.050 (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)(a) Any person who is a whistleblower, as defined in RCW 42.40.020, and who has been subjected to workplace reprisal or retaliatory action is presumed to have established a cause of action for the remedies provided under chapter 49.60 RCW.
(b) For the purpose of this section, "reprisal or retaliatory action" means, but is not limited to, any of the following:
(i) Denial of adequate staff to perform duties;
(ii) Frequent staff changes;
(iii) Frequent and undesirable office changes;
(iv) Refusal to assign meaningful work;
(v) Unwarranted and unsubstantiated letters of reprimand or unsatisfactory performance evaluations;
(vi) Demotion;
(vii) Reduction in pay;
(viii) Denial of promotion;
(ix) Suspension;
(x) Dismissal;
(xi) Denial of employment;
(xii) A supervisor or superior behaving in or encouraging coworkers to behave in a hostile manner toward the whistleblower;
(xiii) A change in the physical location of the employee's workplace or a change in the basic nature of the employee's job, if either are in opposition to the employee's expressed wish;
(xiv) Issuance of or attempt to enforce any nondisclosure policy or agreement in a manner inconsistent with prior practice; or
(xv) Any other action that is inconsistent compared to actions taken before the employee engaged in conduct protected by this chapter, or compared to other employees who have not engaged in conduct protected by this chapter.
(2) The agency presumed to have taken retaliatory action under subsection (1) of this section may rebut that presumption by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that there have been a series of documented personnel problems or a single, egregious event, or that the agency action or actions were justified by reasons unrelated to the employee's status as a whistleblower and that improper motive was not a substantial factor.
(3) Nothing in this section prohibits an agency from making any decision exercising its authority to terminate, suspend, or discipline an employee who engages in workplace reprisal or retaliatory action against a whistleblower. However, the agency also shall implement any order under chapter 49.60 RCW (other than an order of suspension if the agency has terminated the retaliator).
Notes:
Findings—Intent—2008 c 266: See note following RCW 42.40.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Bayless v. Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. XIX, 927 P.2d 254 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
Bayless v. Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. XIX, 927 P.2d 254 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Sully Bayless appeals the trial court’s ruling that RCW 42.40.050, which authorizes actions for damages for unlawful retaliation against whistleblowers, does not apply retroactively.”
Dr. William P. Harman v. Univ. of Tennessee, 353 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. 2011). “3, § 972 (4) (2010)); Washington ( Wash. Rev. Code § 42.40.050 (1)(b)(vi) (Supp.”
Wilson v. City of Monroe, 943 P.2d 1134 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “Wilson apparently relies on the expression of this public policy found in the following: (1) the State Employee Whistleblower Act, specifically RCW 42.40.050 (retaliatory action against whistleblower—remedies), (2) the Local Government Whistleblower Act, specifically RCW 42.”
Woodbury v. City of Seattle, 292 P.3d 134 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 42.40.050. Chapter 49.60 RCW, Washington’s Law Against Discrimination, states that it includes whistle-blowers as defined in chapter 42.”
John Boespflug, Appellant/cross V Wa State Dept. Of L & I, Respondent/cross (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “— John Boespflug appeals the summary judgment order dismissing his claims of whistleblower retaliation under RCW 42.40.050. This appeal presents an issue of first impression, whether we should apply the McDonnell Douglas1 burden-shifting scheme to a summary judgment of a claim…”
Kristine Brumfield v. State Of Washington, Paul Trause (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Unlawful Retaliation in Violation of Whistleblower Law Brumfield first asserts that summary judgment on her whistleblower retaliation claim is inappropriate because material issues of fact remain as to whether the Defendants retaliated against her in violation of the…”
Snell v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash. 2023). “030, or when they face workplace reprisal or retaliatory action based on their 19 actions, RCW 42.40.050. Plaintiff alleges that she was retaliated against after reporting good 20 faith concerns—specifically the waste of government funds, forgery of her name on a PDF, and 21…”
John Boespflug, V. Wa State Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “3 And, although Hurlbut testified that he received an ergonomic evaluation after he had complained about 3 Although DLI noted that Matson was a whistleblower as of 2016 such that he could not be considered a comparator under RCW 42.40.050(1)(b)(xv), Matson testified as to the…”
Blackman v. Omak Sch. Dist. (E.D. Wash. 2020). “See RCW 42.40.050 (State Employee Whistleblower Protection); 15 RCW 49.”
Gardner v. Wells Fargo Bank NA (E.D. Wash. 2021). “, RCW 42.40.050; RCW 49.60.210. Where courts 17 have considered retaliation claims raised under the Minimum Wage Act, they have 18 done so via the public policy element of a wrongful discharge in violation of public 19 policy claim, not as a freestanding cause of action.”
Brooks-Joseph v. City of Seattle (W.D. Wash. 2023). “RCW 42.40.050(1)(a). “Whistleblower” is defined as “[a]n employee who in good faith 2 reports alleged improper governmental action to the auditor or other public official” or “[a]n 3 employee who is perceived by the employer as reporting, whether they did or not.”
Amanda S.b. McIver v. City of Spokane (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “210(2); see also RCW 42.40.050(1) (whistleblower who has been subjected to workplace reprisal or retaliatory action is presumed to have established a cause of action for the remedies provided under chapter 49.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.40.050(1) — 1 case
Amanda S.b. McIver v. City of Spokane (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “210(2); see also RCW 42.40.050(1) (whistleblower who has been subjected to workplace reprisal or retaliatory action is presumed to have established a cause of action for the remedies provided under chapter 49.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.40.050(1)(a) — 3 cases
John Boespflug, Appellant/cross V Wa State Dept. Of L & I, Respondent/cross (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “— John Boespflug appeals the summary judgment order dismissing his claims of whistleblower retaliation under RCW 42.40.050. This appeal presents an issue of first impression, whether we should apply the McDonnell Douglas1 burden-shifting scheme to a summary judgment of a claim…”
Brooks-Joseph v. City of Seattle (W.D. Wash. 2023). “RCW 42.40.050(1)(a). “Whistleblower” is defined as “[a]n employee who in good faith 2 reports alleged improper governmental action to the auditor or other public official” or “[a]n 3 employee who is perceived by the employer as reporting, whether they did or not.”
Kristine Brumfield v. State Of Washington, Paul Trause (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Unlawful Retaliation in Violation of Whistleblower Law Brumfield first asserts that summary judgment on her whistleblower retaliation claim is inappropriate because material issues of fact remain as to whether the Defendants retaliated against her in violation of the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.40.050(1)(b) — 1 case
John Boespflug, Appellant/cross V Wa State Dept. Of L & I, Respondent/cross (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “— John Boespflug appeals the summary judgment order dismissing his claims of whistleblower retaliation under RCW 42.40.050. This appeal presents an issue of first impression, whether we should apply the McDonnell Douglas1 burden-shifting scheme to a summary judgment of a claim…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.40.050(1)(b)(xv) — 1 case
John Boespflug, V. Wa State Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “3 And, although Hurlbut testified that he received an ergonomic evaluation after he had complained about 3 Although DLI noted that Matson was a whistleblower as of 2016 such that he could not be considered a comparator under RCW 42.40.050(1)(b)(xv), Matson testified as to the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.40.050(2) — 4 cases
John Boespflug, Appellant/cross V Wa State Dept. Of L & I, Respondent/cross (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “— John Boespflug appeals the summary judgment order dismissing his claims of whistleblower retaliation under RCW 42.40.050. This appeal presents an issue of first impression, whether we should apply the McDonnell Douglas1 burden-shifting scheme to a summary judgment of a claim…”
Snell v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash. 2023). “030, or when they face workplace reprisal or retaliatory action based on their 19 actions, RCW 42.40.050. Plaintiff alleges that she was retaliated against after reporting good 20 faith concerns—specifically the waste of government funds, forgery of her name on a PDF, and 21…”
John Boespflug, V. Wa State Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “3 And, although Hurlbut testified that he received an ergonomic evaluation after he had complained about 3 Although DLI noted that Matson was a whistleblower as of 2016 such that he could not be considered a comparator under RCW 42.40.050(1)(b)(xv), Matson testified as to the…”
Kristine Brumfield v. State Of Washington, Paul Trause (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Unlawful Retaliation in Violation of Whistleblower Law Brumfield first asserts that summary judgment on her whistleblower retaliation claim is inappropriate because material issues of fact remain as to whether the Defendants retaliated against her in violation of the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.40.050(l)(b)(vi) — 1 case
Dr. William P. Harman v. Univ. of Tennessee, 353 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. 2011). “3, § 972 (4) (2010)); Washington ( Wash. Rev. Code § 42.40.050 (1)(b)(vi) (Supp.”
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.