Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.090
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
It shall be an unfair practice:
(1) For an employer or licensing agency, because an individual is forty years of age or older, to refuse to hire or employ or license or to bar or to terminate from employment such individual, or to discriminate against such individual in promotion, compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment: PROVIDED, That employers or licensing agencies may establish reasonable minimum and/or maximum age limits with respect to candidates for positions of employment, which positions are of such a nature as to require extraordinary physical effort, endurance, condition or training, subject to the approval of the executive director of the Washington state human rights commission or the director of labor and industries through the division of industrial relations.
(2) For any employer, licensing agency or employment agency to print or circulate or cause to be printed or circulated any statement, advertisement, or publication, or to use any form of application for employment or to make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment, which expresses any limitation, specification or discrimination respecting individuals forty years of age or older: PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall forbid a requirement of disclosure of birthdate upon any form of application for employment or by the production of a birth certificate or other sufficient evidence of the applicant's true age after an employee is hired.
Nothing contained in this section or in RCW 49.60.180 as to age shall be construed to prevent the termination of the employment of any person who is physically unable to perform his or her duties or to affect the retirement policy or system of any employer where such policy or system is not merely a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this section; nor shall anything in this section or in RCW 49.60.180 be deemed to preclude the varying of insurance coverages according to an employee's age; nor shall this section be construed as applying to any state, county, or city law enforcement agencies, or as superseding any law fixing or authorizing the establishment of reasonable minimum or maximum age limits with respect to candidates for certain positions in public employment which are of such a nature as to require extraordinary physical effort, or which for other reasons warrant consideration of age factors.
Notes:
Severability—1993 c 510: See note following RCW 49.60.010.
Element of age not to affect apprenticeship agreements: RCW 49.04.910.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Kilian v. Atkinson
Kilian v. Atkinson (2002)
“030 and RCW 49.44.090. Named as defendants in the suit were Mitch Atkinson, Mayor of the City of Chelan, his wife Jane Doe Atkinson, and the City of Chelan.”
Bennett v. Hardy (1990)
“The issue presented is whether we should imply a cause of action under a separate statute, RCW 49.44.090, which makes age discrimination an unfair employment practice but does not create a remedy.”
Gross v. City of Lynnwood (1978)
“Initially, we must confront the question of whether RCW 49.60.180 creates a civil cause of action for age discrimination in a 35-year-old individual.”
Cole v. HARVEYLAND, LLC (2011)
“180 pertains to age discrimination, its protection was only for persons aged 40 to 65 because that is the age range specified by a companion statute, RCW 49.44.090. The city had not mentioned RCW 49.”
Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997)
“) For all these reasons, we are persuaded that the FEHA's policy against age discrimination in employment is sufficiently substantial and fundamental to support a tort claim for wrongful discharge.”
Sarruf v. Miller (1978)
“He asserted that the age restrictions imposed by RCW 49.44.090 had been repealed in 1973 and that the statute governing age discrimination is RCW 49.”
Kathy Kroske, an Individual v. Us Bank Corp., a Foreign Corporation Dba U.S. Bank (2005)
“090 further provides, in relevant part: It shall be an unfair practice (1) For an employer or licensing agency, because an individual is forty years of age or older, to refuse to hire or employ or license or to bar or to terminate from employment such individual, or to…”
Becker v. Washington State University (2011)
“180 and RCW 49.44.090, which provide that it is an unfair labor practice for employers to hire, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against employees who are 40 years of age or older.”
Keenan v. Allan (1995)
“60 and RCW 49.44.090; • VIII and IX: failure to pay wages under 29 U.”
Roberts v. Dudley (2000)
“We there recognized an implied cause of action under RCW 49.44.090 which makes age discrimination against an employee between the ages of 40 and 70 an unfair practice.”
Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I (2001)
“The record shows that Hill was (1) between 40 and 70 years of age at the time, RCW 49.44.090, 49.60.205; (2) by all accounts excelled at her job as a BCTI recruiter; (3) was discharged by BCTI; and (4) was replaced by significantly younger persons.”
Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Company (1984)
“100 (minimum wage act), RCW 49.44.090 (violations — prohibited practices).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.090(1) — 7 cases
Becker v. Washington State University (2011)
“180 and RCW 49.44.090, which provide that it is an unfair labor practice for employers to hire, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against employees who are 40 years of age or older.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.090(2) — 1 case
Gross v. City of Lynnwood (1978)
“Initially, we must confront the question of whether RCW 49.60.180 creates a civil cause of action for age discrimination in a 35-year-old individual.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.090(age) — 1 case
Marquis v. City of Spokane (1996)
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.