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

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.160 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 2034-S2.SL) ***
The legislature intends that public employers be prohibited from misclassifying employees, or taking other action to avoid providing or continuing to provide employment-based benefits to which employees are entitled under state law or employer policies or collective bargaining agreements applicable to the employee's correct classification.
Chapter 155, Laws of 2002 does not mandate that any public employer provide benefits to actual temporary, seasonal, or part-time employees beyond the benefits to which they are entitled under state law or employer policies or collective bargaining agreements applicable to the employee's correct classification. Public employers may determine eligibility rules for their own benefit plans and may exclude categories of workers such as "temporary" or "seasonal," so long as the definitions and eligibility rules are objective and applied on a consistent basis. Objective standards, such as control over the work and the length of the employment relationship, should determine whether a person is an employee who is entitled to employee benefits, rather than the arbitrary application of labels, such as "temporary" or "contractor." Common law standards should be used to determine whether a person is performing services as an employee, as a contractor, or as part of an agency relationship.
Chapter 155, Laws of 2002 does not modify any statute or policy regarding the employment of: Public employee retirees who are hired for postretirement employment as provided for in chapter 41.26, 41.32, 41.35, or 41.40 RCW or who work as contractors; or enrolled students who receive employment as student employees or as part of their education or financial aid.
[ 2002 c 155 s 1.]

Notes:

Construction—2002 c 155: "This act shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of its purposes." [ 2002 c 155 s 3.]
Severability—2002 c 155: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 2002 c 155 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2003–2010 · leading case: Mader v. Health Care Auth., 70 P.3d 931 (Wash. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mader v. Health Care Auth., 70 P.3d 931 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 5× “” RCW 49.44.160. Rather than arbitrary labels, “[o\bjective standards, such as control over the work and the length of the employment relationship, should determine whether a person is an employee who is entitled to employee benefits.”
Lane v. Harborview Med. Ctr., 154 Wash. App. 279 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “160, the intent section of the misclassification act, provides guidance for interpreting the act: The legislature intends that public employers be prohibited from misclassifying employees, or taking other action to avoid providing or continuing to provide employment-based…”
Mader v. Health Care Auth., 70 P.3d 931 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 5× “" RCW 49.44.160. Rather than arbitrary labels, "[ o ] bjective standards, such as control over the work and the length of the employment relationship, should determine whether a person is an employee who is entitled to employee benefits.”
Lane v. Harborview Med. Ctr., 227 P.3d 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “160, the intent section of the misclassification act, provides guidance for interpreting the act: The legislature intends that public employers be prohibited from misclassifying employees, or taking other action to avoid providing or continuing to provide employment-based…”
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.