Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.41
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.41.050 (2026)

Exemptions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any local government that has adopted or adopts a program for reporting alleged improper governmental actions and adjudicating retaliation resulting from such reporting shall be exempt from this chapter if the program meets the intent of this chapter.
[ 1992 c 44 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 178 Wash. App. 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 178 Wash. App. 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “The lower court ruled that the city of Yakima was exempt from a whistle-blower suit under RCW 42.41.050, since the city of Yakima had its own whistleblower policy.”
Seattle City Light, Respondent, v. Aaron Swanson, Appellant, 373 P.3d 342 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “” ¶51 RCW 42.41.050 provides that if a local government adopts a program that “meets the intent of this chapter” to protect an employee from reporting alleged improper governmental actions and retaliation, it “shall be exempt from this chapter.”
Keenan v. Allan, 889 F. Supp. 1320 (E.D. Wash. 1995). · cites it 2× “93-5CC covers whistleblower claims under RCW 42.41.050. D101. This is a legal conclusion, not a fact.”
Dewey v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 974 P.2d 847 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “050 provides: Any local government that has adopted or adopts a program for reporting alleged improper governmental actions and adjudicating retaliation resulting from such reporting shall be exempt from this chapter if the program meets the intent of this chapter.”
Wilson v. City of Monroe, 943 P.2d 1134 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “41 nor Policy #92-39 provides a personal right of action. 23 RCW 42.40.010; RCW 42.40.020(2). 24 See RCW 42.”
Woodbury v. City of Seattle, 292 P.3d 134 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 42.41.050. ¶10 The City promulgated such rules.”
Dewey v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 974 P.2d 847 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “(Emphasis added.) Because the District adopted Policy 3645, [5] which mirrors RCW 42.”
Charles Hause v. Spokane Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “RCW 42.41.050 exempts local governments that adopt a similar whistleblower retaliation procedure from the coverage of RCW 42.”
Oscar J. Brownfield v. City of Yakima (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “The lower court ruled that the city of Yakima was exempt from a whistleblower suit under RCW 42.41.050, since the city of Yakima had its own whistleblower policy.”
Brooks-Joseph v. City of Seattle (W.D. Wash. 2023). “28 1 RCW 42.41.050. Seattle has promulgated such rules, and the Washington Court of Appeals has 2 determined that “the procedures the City adopted allowing a whistle-blower to file a complaint 3 and report improper governmental conduct with the City and request an administrative…”
Owens v. King Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2024). “30, 2000) (recognizing King County 6 Whistleblower Protection Ordinance as legally sufficient whistleblower program under state 7 law); see RCW 42.41.050 (“Any local government that has adopted or adopts a program for 8 reporting alleged improper governmental actions and…”
Amos v. Kalama Sch. Dist. (W.D. Wash. 2025). “19 Defendants further argue that they are exempt from the requirements of the LGWPA 20 because they have promulgated their own whistleblower policy, and under Washington Revised 21 Code § 42.41.050 “[a]ny local government that has adopted or adopts a program for reporting 22…”
Show all 13 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.