Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.120
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 2107-S.SL) ***
(1) If upon inspection or investigation the director or the director's authorized representative believes that an employer has violated a requirement of RCW 49.17.060, or any safety or health standard promulgated by rule adopted by the director, or the conditions of any order granting a variance pursuant to this chapter, the director shall with reasonable promptness issue a citation to the employer. Each citation shall be in writing and shall describe with particularity the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provisions of the statute, standard, rule, regulation, or order alleged to have been violated. In addition, the citation shall fix a reasonable time for the abatement of the violation.
(2) The director may prescribe procedures for the issuance of a notice in lieu of a citation with respect to de minimis violations which have no direct or immediate relationship to safety or health.
(3) Each citation, or a copy or copies thereof, issued under the authority of this section and RCW 49.17.130 shall be prominently posted, at or near each place a violation referred to in the citation occurred or as may otherwise be prescribed in regulations issued by the director. The director shall provide by rule for procedures to be followed by an employee representative upon written application to receive copies of citations and notices issued to any employer having employees who are represented by such employee representative. Such rule may prescribe the form of such application, the time for renewal of applications, and the eligibility of the applicant to receive copies of citations and notices.
(4) No citation may be issued under this section or RCW 49.17.130 after the expiration of six months following a compliance inspection, investigation, or survey revealing any such violation.
(5)(a) No citation may be issued under this section if there is unpreventable employee misconduct that led to the violation, but the employer must show the existence of:
(i) A thorough safety program, including work rules, training, and equipment designed to prevent the violation;
(ii) Adequate communication of these rules to employees;
(iii) Steps to discover and correct violations of its safety rules; and
(iv) Effective enforcement of its safety program as written in practice and not just in theory.
(b) This subsection (5) does not eliminate or modify any other defenses that may exist to a citation.
(6)(a) When conducting inspections of employer worksites where workers are engaged in activities as defined by North American industry classification system 2361, residential building construction, the department shall make a good faith effort to notify the employer or owner within 10 working days where a hazard that could cause injury to a worker was immediately identified during an inspection. Such notice does not eliminate or modify any other right, responsibility, or authority provided in this chapter.
(b) The notice requirement in (a) of this subsection applies only until June 30, 2026.
(c) By December 1, 2026, the department shall report to the appropriate committees of the legislature the number and percent of inspections in (a) of this subsection when timely notice was not given to the owner or employer and the reasons why the department did not or could not comply.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: J.E. Dunn Northwest, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries
J.E. Dunn Northwest, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2007)
“In turn, that determination supports the BIIA’s conclusion that those violations were established by the Department. B. Unpreventable Employee Misconduct ¶27 Once the Department has established its prima facie case regarding a violation of a WISHA regulation by an employer in…”
Inland Foundry Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2001)
“RCW 49.17.120 grants the Department authority to issue a citation to an employer for violating a safety or health standard: Each citation shall be in writing and shall describe with particularity the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provisions of the…”
Legacy Roofing, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2005)
“s (1) that L&I did not establish a prima facie case of a serious violation of the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) 2 because it failed to prove that the company had actual or constructive knowledge of its employee’s violative conduct and (2) that the…”
Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. Department of Labor (2004)
“” RCW 49.17.120(2). Because a fall here could have resulted in serious physical harm, Washington Cedar’s argument that the violation was de minimus fails.”
Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. State (2007)
“RCW 49.17.120(1). The statute also provides an affirmative defense to citations for unpreventable employee misconduct.”
Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2007)
“RCW 49.17.120(1). The statute also provides an affirmative defense to citations for unpreventable employee misconduct.”
Potelco, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2016)
“at 113 (alterations in original) (quoting RCW 49.17.120(5)). ¶25 When a supervisor is involved in a violation, “the proof of unpreventable employee misconduct is more rigorous and the defense is more difficult to establish since it is the supervisor’s duty to protect the safety…”
BD Roofing, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2007)
“Employee Misconduct ¶27 BD claims that the Board erred by concluding that it failed to prove its affirmative defense of employee misconduct under RCW 49.17.120. Specifically, BD contends that it effectively enforced the rules established by its safety program.”
BD Roofing, Inc. v. STATE DOL AND INDUSTRIES (2007)
“EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT ¶ 27 BD claims that the Board erred by concluding that it failed to prove its affirmative defense of employee misconduct under RCW 49.17.120. Specifically, BD contends that it effectively enforced the rules established by its safety program.”
Wade's Eastside Gun Shop, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2016)
“L&I qualifies as a civil law enforcement agency because it is charged with enforcing worker safety laws, RCW 49.17.120, and issuing fines, RCW 49.”
JE Dunn Northwest, Inc. v. DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES (2007)
“In turn, that determination supports the BIIA's conclusion that those violations were established by the Department. B. Unpreventable Employee Misconduct ¶ 27 Once the Department has established its prima facie case regarding a violation of a WISHA regulation by an employer in…”
Danzer v. Department of Labor & Industries (2000)
“RCW 49.17.120, .130, .180; Erection Co., 121 Wn.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.120(1) — 13 cases
Inland Foundry Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2001)
“RCW 49.17.120 grants the Department authority to issue a citation to an employer for violating a safety or health standard: Each citation shall be in writing and shall describe with particularity the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provisions of the…”
Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. State (2007)
“RCW 49.17.120(1). The statute also provides an affirmative defense to citations for unpreventable employee misconduct.”
Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2007)
“RCW 49.17.120(1). The statute also provides an affirmative defense to citations for unpreventable employee misconduct.”
Wade's Eastside Gun Shop, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2016)
“L&I qualifies as a civil law enforcement agency because it is charged with enforcing worker safety laws, RCW 49.17.120, and issuing fines, RCW 49.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.120(2) — 3 cases
Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. Department of Labor (2004)
“” RCW 49.17.120(2). Because a fall here could have resulted in serious physical harm, Washington Cedar’s argument that the violation was de minimus fails.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.120(3) — 2 cases
Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. State (2007)
“RCW 49.17.120(1). The statute also provides an affirmative defense to citations for unpreventable employee misconduct.”
Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2007)
“RCW 49.17.120(1). The statute also provides an affirmative defense to citations for unpreventable employee misconduct.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.120(4) — 2 cases
Inland Foundry Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2001)
“RCW 49.17.120 grants the Department authority to issue a citation to an employer for violating a safety or health standard: Each citation shall be in writing and shall describe with particularity the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provisions of the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.120(5) — 12 cases
Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. Department of Labor (2004)
“” RCW 49.17.120(2). Because a fall here could have resulted in serious physical harm, Washington Cedar’s argument that the violation was de minimus fails.”
BD Roofing, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2007)
“Employee Misconduct ¶27 BD claims that the Board erred by concluding that it failed to prove its affirmative defense of employee misconduct under RCW 49.17.120. Specifically, BD contends that it effectively enforced the rules established by its safety program.”
BD Roofing, Inc. v. STATE DOL AND INDUSTRIES (2007)
“EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT ¶ 27 BD claims that the Board erred by concluding that it failed to prove its affirmative defense of employee misconduct under RCW 49.17.120. Specifically, BD contends that it effectively enforced the rules established by its safety program.”
Potelco, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2016)
“at 113 (alterations in original) (quoting RCW 49.17.120(5)). ¶25 When a supervisor is involved in a violation, “the proof of unpreventable employee misconduct is more rigorous and the defense is more difficult to establish since it is the supervisor’s duty to protect the safety…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.120(5)(a) — 21 cases
J.E. Dunn Northwest, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2007)
“In turn, that determination supports the BIIA’s conclusion that those violations were established by the Department. B. Unpreventable Employee Misconduct ¶27 Once the Department has established its prima facie case regarding a violation of a WISHA regulation by an employer in…”
Potelco, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2016)
“at 113 (alterations in original) (quoting RCW 49.17.120(5)). ¶25 When a supervisor is involved in a violation, “the proof of unpreventable employee misconduct is more rigorous and the defense is more difficult to establish since it is the supervisor’s duty to protect the safety…”
Legacy Roofing, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2005)
“s (1) that L&I did not establish a prima facie case of a serious violation of the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) 2 because it failed to prove that the company had actual or constructive knowledge of its employee’s violative conduct and (2) that the…”
Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. State (2007)
“RCW 49.17.120(1). The statute also provides an affirmative defense to citations for unpreventable employee misconduct.”
Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2007)
“RCW 49.17.120(1). The statute also provides an affirmative defense to citations for unpreventable employee misconduct.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.120(5)(a)(i) — 3 cases
Legacy Roofing, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2005)
“s (1) that L&I did not establish a prima facie case of a serious violation of the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) 2 because it failed to prove that the company had actual or constructive knowledge of its employee’s violative conduct and (2) that the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.120(5)(a)(ii) — 1 case
Legacy Roofing, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2005)
“s (1) that L&I did not establish a prima facie case of a serious violation of the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) 2 because it failed to prove that the company had actual or constructive knowledge of its employee’s violative conduct and (2) that the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.120(5)(a)(iii) — 1 case
Legacy Roofing, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2005)
“s (1) that L&I did not establish a prima facie case of a serious violation of the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) 2 because it failed to prove that the company had actual or constructive knowledge of its employee’s violative conduct and (2) that the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.120(5)(a)(iv) — 7 cases
Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. Department of Labor (2004)
“” RCW 49.17.120(2). Because a fall here could have resulted in serious physical harm, Washington Cedar’s argument that the violation was de minimus fails.”
J.E. Dunn Northwest, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2007)
“In turn, that determination supports the BIIA’s conclusion that those violations were established by the Department. B. Unpreventable Employee Misconduct ¶27 Once the Department has established its prima facie case regarding a violation of a WISHA regulation by an employer in…”
Legacy Roofing, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2005)
“s (1) that L&I did not establish a prima facie case of a serious violation of the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) 2 because it failed to prove that the company had actual or constructive knowledge of its employee’s violative conduct and (2) that the…”
JE Dunn Northwest, Inc. v. DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES (2007)
“In turn, that determination supports the BIIA's conclusion that those violations were established by the Department. B. Unpreventable Employee Misconduct ¶ 27 Once the Department has established its prima facie case regarding a violation of a WISHA regulation by an employer in…”
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.