Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.52
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.070 (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) Except as required to perform duties within the scope of employment, no state officer or state employee may use his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself or herself, or his or her spouse, child, parents, or other persons.
(2) For purposes of this section, and only as applied to legislators and employees under the jurisdiction of the legislative ethics board, activities within the scope of employment include but are not limited to duties enumerated in law and activities that have a tangible legislative nexus as described in RCW 42.52.175.
(3) For purposes of this section, and only as applied to legislators and employees of the legislative branch, "special privileges" includes, but is not limited to, engaging in behavior that constitutes harassment. As used in this section:
(a) "Harassment" means engaging in physical, verbal, visual, or psychological conduct that:
(i) Has the purpose or effect of interfering with the person's work performance;
(ii) Creates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive work environment; or
(iii) Constitutes sexual harassment.
(b) "Sexual harassment" means unwelcome or unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual or romantic favors, sexually motivated bullying, or other verbal, visual, physical, or psychological conduct or communication of a sexual or romantic nature, when:
(i) Submission to the conduct or communication is either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of current or future employment;
(ii) Submission to or rejection of the conduct or communication is used as the basis of an employment decision affecting the person; or
(iii) The conduct or communication unreasonably interferes with the person's job performance or creates a work environment that is hostile, intimidating, or offensive.
[ 2025 c 377 s 4; 2022 c 37 s 1; 2019 c 383 s 1; 1994 c 154 s 107.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2002–2003 · leading case: Hubbard v. Spokane Cnty., 50 P.3d 602 (Wash. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hubbard v. Spokane Cnty., 50 P.3d 602 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “However, in support of this proposition, it improperly relies on RCW 42.52.070. Although RCW 42.52.070 uses language similar to that used in RCW 42.”
In re the Recall of Feetham, 72 P.3d 741 (Wash. 2003). “020), and seeming special privileges as a public officer (RCW 42.52.070). Feetham also alleges Berg violated the oath of attorney (RCW 2.”
In Re Recall Charges Against Feetham, 72 P.3d 741 (Wash. 2003). “020); and securing special privileges as a public officer (RCW 42.52.070). Feetham also alleges Berg violated the oath of attorney (RCW 2.”
Hubbard v. Spokene Cnty., 50 P.3d 602 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “However, in support of this proposition, it improperly relies on RCW 42.52.070. Although RCW 42.52.070 uses language similar to that used in RCW 42.”
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.