Wash. Rev. Code » Title 49 · Chapter 49.44
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.120 (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) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or the state of Washington, its political subdivisions or municipal corporations to require, directly or indirectly, that any employee or prospective employee take or be subjected to any lie detector or similar tests as a condition of employment or continued employment: PROVIDED, That this section shall not apply to persons making application for employment with any law enforcement agency or with the juvenile court services agency of any county, or to persons returning after a break of more than twenty-four consecutive months in service as a fully commissioned law enforcement officer: PROVIDED FURTHER, That this section shall not apply to either the initial application for employment or continued employment of persons who manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances as defined in chapter 69.50 RCW, or to persons in sensitive positions directly involving national security.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the use of psychological tests as defined in RCW 18.83.010.
(3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(4) As used in this section, "person" includes any individual, firm, corporation, or agency or political subdivision of the state.
(5) Nothing in this section may be construed as limiting any statutory or common law rights of any person illegally denied employment or continued employment under this section for purposes of any civil action or injunctive relief.
[ 2007 c 14 s 1; 2005 c 265 s 1; 2003 c 53 s 278; 1985 c 426 s 1; 1973 c 145 s 1; 1965 c 152 s 1.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1972–2015 · leading case: O'HARTIGAN v. Dep't of Pers., 821 P.2d 44 (Wash. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
O'HARTIGAN v. Dep't of Pers., 821 P.2d 44 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 33× “She challenges both the polygraph *114 examination and RCW 49.44.120, which authorizes the exam, as unconstitutional violations of her right to privacy and right to equal protection.”
Seattle Police Officers' Guild v. City of Seattle, 494 P.2d 485 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 4× “And if this court holds that those principles and those rights apply to persons accused of crimes, to lawyers in the performance of their professional duties, to the employees of all but the state and its subdivisions ( see RCW 49.44.120), what real meaning can they have for…”
Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 913 P.2d 377 (Wash. 1996). “The court next considered whether RCW 49.44.120, which prohibits private or public employers from requiring employees to take lie detector tests, was a valid source of public policy.”
Wachovia SBA Lending v. Kraft, 158 P.3d 1271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “185 (reasonable expenses for frivolous claims), "award any prevailing party against whom an action has been brought for a violation of RCW 49.”
Wachovia SBA Lending v. Kraft, 138 Wash. App. 854 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “185 (reasonable expenses for frivolous claims), “award any prevailing party against whom an action has been brought for a violation of RCW 49.”
Roe v. Quality Transp. Servs., 838 P.2d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “RCW 49.44.120. In Twigg v. Hercules Corp.”
Robinson v. City of Seattle, 10 P.3d 452 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “[42] RCW 49.44.120. [43] See Wash. Const. art.”
Robinson v. City of Seattle, 102 Wash. App. 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 49.44.120. See Wash. Const. art. II, § 35; Gregory J.”
State v. Stamm, 559 P.2d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “, dissenting); RCW 49.44.120 (added by Laws of 1965, ch.”
State by Spannaus v. Century Camera, Inc., 309 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. 1981). “1-2 (1979) (prohibits requiring or subjecting to lie detector as a condition of employment or continued employment; makes punishable by fine subjecting or directly or indirectly causing test to be taken, exempts law enforcement agencies in performance of their official duties);…”
Michael Michelbrink, Jr. v. Washington State Patrol, 363 P.3d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “10 For example, RCW 49.44.120 prohibits potential employers from requiring employees or prospective employees to be subject to any lie detector tests as a condition of employment.”
Stone v. Chelan Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 756 P.2d 736 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 7× “Brad Stone brought this action against Chelan County and the Chelan County Sheriff's Department alleging he was wrongfully denied employment because he refused to take a polygraph examination, in violation of RCW 49.44.120. The question presented is whether a city law…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.