Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.410 (2026)
Filing complaint—Whistleblower protection—Penalty for reprisal or retaliation
✓ 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 person may, personally or by his or her attorney, make, sign, and file with the appropriate ethics board a complaint on a form provided by the appropriate ethics board. The complaint shall state the name of the person alleged to have violated this chapter or rules adopted under it and the particulars thereof, and contain such other information as may be required by the appropriate ethics board.
(2) If it has reason to believe that any person has been engaged or is engaging in a violation of this chapter or rules adopted under it, an ethics board may issue a complaint.
(3)(a) A state employee who files a complaint with the appropriate ethics board shall be afforded the protection afforded to a whistleblower under RCW 42.40.050 and 49.60.210(2), subject to the limitations of RCW 42.40.035 and 42.40.910. An agency, manager, or supervisor may not retaliate against a state employee who, after making a reasonable attempt to ascertain the correctness of the information furnished, files a complaint with the appropriate ethics board.
(b) A state employee may not be denied the protections in chapter 42.40 RCW even if the ethics board denies an investigation of the complaint.
(4) If a determination is made that a reprisal or retaliatory action has been taken against the state employee, the retaliator may be subject to a civil penalty of up to five thousand dollars.
Notes:
Finding—2013 c 190: "The legislature finds that ensuring public trust in government is a priority. The public expects its elected officials and state employees to adhere to the highest ethical standards during their service, and this includes a commitment to full and independent investigations, with proper penalties, in cases where the ethics in public service act is violated." [ 2013 c 190 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Sanders v. State, 159 P.3d 479 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Sanders v. State, 159 P.3d 479 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 42.52.410, .420; CJCRP 17. Second, the ethics board may dismiss the complaint without a hearing, and the Commission may dismiss the complaint without filing a statement of charges.”
Brady Horenstein v. Exec. Ethics Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 42.52.410(1). If the Ethics Board has reason to believe a person has or is violating the EPSA or rules promulgated under it, the Ethics Board may issue a complaint.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.410(1): 1 case
Brady Horenstein v. Exec. Ethics Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 42.52.410(1). If the Ethics Board has reason to believe a person has or is violating the EPSA or rules promulgated under it, the Ethics Board may issue a complaint.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.410(2): 1 case
Brady Horenstein v. Exec. Ethics Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 42.52.410(1). If the Ethics Board has reason to believe a person has or is violating the EPSA or rules promulgated under it, the Ethics Board may issue a complaint.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.410(3)(a): 1 case
Brady Horenstein v. Exec. Ethics Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 42.52.410(1). If the Ethics Board has reason to believe a person has or is violating the EPSA or rules promulgated under it, the Ethics Board may issue a complaint.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.410(3)(b): 1 case
Brady Horenstein v. Exec. Ethics Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 42.52.410(1). If the Ethics Board has reason to believe a person has or is violating the EPSA or rules promulgated under it, the Ethics Board may issue a complaint.”
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.