Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.010 (2026)

Blacklisting—Penalty

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every person in this state who shall wilfully and maliciously, send or deliver, or make or cause to be made, for the purpose of being delivered or sent or part with the possession of any paper, letter or writing, with or without name signed thereto, or signed with a fictitious name, or with any letter, mark or other designation, or publish or cause to be published any statement for the purpose of preventing any other person from obtaining employment in this state or elsewhere, and every person who shall wilfully and maliciously "blacklist" or cause to be "blacklisted" any person or persons, by writing, printing or publishing, or causing the same to be done, the name, or mark, or designation representing the name of any person in any paper, pamphlet, circular or book, together with any statement concerning persons so named, or publish or cause to be published that any person is a member of any secret organization, for the purpose of preventing such person from securing employment, or who shall wilfully and maliciously make or issue any statement or paper that will tend to influence or prejudice the mind of any employer against the person of such person seeking employment, or any person who shall do any of the things mentioned in this section for the purpose of causing the discharge of any person employed by any railroad or other company, corporation, individual or individuals, shall, on conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ninety days nor more than three hundred sixty-four days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

[ 2011 c 96 s 42; 1899 c 23 s 1; RRS s 7599.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—2011 c 96: See note following RCW 9A.20.021.

Interference with or discharge from employment of member of organized militia: RCW 38.40.040, 38.40.050.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2012–2025 · leading case: Moore v. Com. Aircraft Interiors, LLC, 278 P.3d 197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Moore v. Com. Aircraft Interiors, LLC, 278 P.3d 197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “" ¶ 11 On March 2, 2010, Moore sued CAI and Welch (collectively CAI) claiming that they had unlawfully interfered with his prospects of employment with Volant and had also violated RCW 49.44.010, a statute that imposes criminal penalties for "wilfully and maliciously"…”

Moore v. Com. Aircraft Interiors, LLC, 168 Wash. App. 502 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “” ¶11 On March 2, 2010, Moore sued CAI and Welch (collectively CAI), claiming that they had unlawfully interfered with his prospects of employment with Volant and had also violated RCW 49.44.010, a statute that imposes criminal penalties for “wilfully and maliciously”…”

Lenk v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 3× “” RCW 49.44.010. The 10 parties dispute whether violation of this statute gives rise to a private right of action.”

Adamson v. Pierce Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 2× “Illegal Blacklisting 22 Plaintiffs allege that Pierce County blacklisted them in violation of the Revised Code of 23 Washington § 49.44.010, which is a criminal statute.”

Eric R. Shibley, Md, / X-res. v. King Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Dist., / X-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “86 RCW; violation of the Washington blacklisting statute, RCW 49.44.010; and vicarious liability. Defendants moved for summary judgment.”

Burton A. Dezihan v. State of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Dezihan became aware of facts sufficient to put him on notice that (1) the State had released the whistleblower complaint and his identity as the complainant, and (2) that Mr.”

Dahlstrom v. Life Care Centers of Am. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). “at 65–67 (Claim 11); (11) defamation and invasion of privacy claims under Washington law, 12 id.”

Lenk v. Monolithic Power Sys. Inc. (D. Ariz. 2025). “” Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.010 . 4 Lenk has not sufficiently pled this claim because he has not alleged any statements 5 Monolithic made to prevent Lenk from obtaining employment.”

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.