Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.005 (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) Whereas the establishment of a minimum wage for employees is a subject of vital and imminent concern to the people of this state and requires appropriate action by the legislature to establish minimum standards of employment within the state of Washington, therefore the legislature declares that in its considered judgment the health, safety and the general welfare of the citizens of this state require the enactment of this measure, and exercising its police power, the legislature endeavors by this chapter to establish a minimum wage for employees of this state to encourage employment opportunities within the state. The provisions of this chapter are enacted in the exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of protecting the immediate and future health, safety and welfare of the people of this state.

(2) Since the enactment of Washington's original minimum wage act, the legislature and the people have repeatedly amended this chapter to establish and enforce modern fair labor standards, including periodically updating the minimum wage and establishing the forty-hour workweek and the right to overtime pay.

(3) The people hereby amend this chapter to conform to modern fair labor standards by establishing a fair minimum wage and the right to paid sick leave to protect public health and allow workers to care for the health of themselves and their families.

[ 2017 c 2 s 2 (Initiative Measure No. 1433, approved November 8, 2016); 1961 ex.s. c 18 s 1.]

Notes:

Intent—2017 c 2 (Initiative Measure No. 1433): "It is the intent of the people to establish fair labor standards and protect the rights of workers by increasing the hourly minimum wage to $11.00 (2017), $11.50 (2018), $12.00 (2019)[,] and $13.50 (2020), and requiring employers to provide employees with paid sick leave to care for the health of themselves and their families." [ 2017 c 2 s 1 (Initiative Measure No. 1433, approved November 8, 2016).]

Effective date—2017 c 2 (Initiative Measure No. 1433): "This act takes effect on January 1, 2017." [ 2017 c 2 s 14 (Initiative Measure No. 1433, approved November 8, 2016).]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 32 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Bostain v. Food Exp., Inc., 153 P.3d 846 (Wash. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bostain v. Food Exp., Inc., 153 P.3d 846 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 12× “Food Express contends, however, that the Court of *851 Appeals properly considered language in RCW 49.46.005 and two administrative rules promulgated by the Department of Labor and Industries, WAC 296-128-011 and WAC 296-128-012, in arriving at the conclusion that only hours…”

Bostain v. Food Express, Inc., 159 Wash. 2d 700 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 12× “Food Express contends, however, that the Court of Appeals properly considered language in RCW 49.46.005 and two administrative rules promulgated by the Department of Labor and Industries, WAC 296-128-011 and WAC 296-128-012, in arriving at the conclusion that only hours worked…”

Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, Inc., 475 P.3d 164 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 5× “See RCW 49.46.005 (declaration of police power); see also Ass’n of Wash.”

Hill v. Xerox Bus. Servs., LLC, 426 P.3d 703 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 3× “3d 1265 ); RCW 49.46.005. Indeed, our precedent requires this court to make sure that the MWA " ' "be liberally construed [in favor of the employee] and that its exceptions be narrowly confined.”

Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 151 Wash. 2d 853 (Wash. 2004). “at 534 ; see also RCW 49.46.005 (stating MWA’s purposes). Inniss did not reference, much less approve, the court’s prerogative to impose its view of any payment offered by an employer as an alteration of a previously established “regular rate of pay.”

Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 93 P.3d 108 (Wash. 2004). “3d 807 ; see also RCW 49.46.005 (stating MWA's purposes). Inniss did not reference, much less approve, the court's prerogative to impose its view of any payment offered by an employer as an alteration of a previously established "regular rate of pay.”

Certification From the U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Wash. in Mariano Carranza v. Dovex Fruit Co., 416 P.3d 1205 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 2× “RCW 49.46.005(1). Thirty years after its enactment, the MWA was expanded to apply to agricultural workers by the will of the people pursuant to their initiative power.”

Berrocal v. Fernandez, 121 P.3d 82 (Wash. 2005). “" RCW 49.46.005. The majority's conclusion that Berrocal and Castillo are not entitled to a minimum wage because the exemption focuses on the "overall status of the `individual,' rather than minute-by-minute variation between activity and inactivity," majority at 86, is…”

Berrocal v. Fernandez, 155 Wash. 2d 585 (Wash. 2005). “” RCW 49.46.005. The majority’s conclusion that Berrocal and Castillo are not entitled to a minimum wage because the exemption focuses on the “overall status of the ‘individual,’ rather than minute-by-minute variations between activity and inactivity,” majority at 595, is…”

Washington v. GEO Grp., Inc., 283 F. Supp. 3d 967 (W.D. Wash. 2017). · cites it 3× “This purpose is consistent with the legislative purpose found in the preamble to the State Minimum Wage Act, to "encourage employment opportunities within the state," RCW 49.46.005, whereas Defendant's alleged failure to observe the State minimum wage has allegedly enriched…”

Nwauzor v. The GEO Grp., Inc., 540 P.3d 93 (Wash. 2023). · cites it 2× “” RCW 49.46.005(1). In doing so, it recognized that “the establishment of a minimum wage for employees is a subject of vital and imminent concern to the people of this state and requires appropriate action by the legislature to establish minimum standards of employment within .”

Inniss v. Tandy Corp., 7 P.3d 807 (Wash. 2000). “020, for each hour worked up to forty hours per week, and compensation of one and one-half times that hourly rate for all hours worked over forty hours in one week; or” RCW 49.46.005. f 40 hours x v Minimum Hourly Wage Under RCW 49.”

Show all 32 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.005(1) — 11 cases

Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, Inc., 475 P.3d 164 (Wash. 2020). “See RCW 49.46.005 (declaration of police power); see also Ass’n of Wash.”

Certification From the U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Wash. in Mariano Carranza v. Dovex Fruit Co., 416 P.3d 1205 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 49.46.005(1). Thirty years after its enactment, the MWA was expanded to apply to agricultural workers by the will of the people pursuant to their initiative power.”

Hill v. Xerox Bus. Servs., LLC, 426 P.3d 703 (Wash. 2018). “3d 1265 ); RCW 49.46.005. Indeed, our precedent requires this court to make sure that the MWA " ' "be liberally construed [in favor of the employee] and that its exceptions be narrowly confined.”

Nwauzor v. The GEO Grp., Inc., 540 P.3d 93 (Wash. 2023). “” RCW 49.46.005(1). In doing so, it recognized that “the establishment of a minimum wage for employees is a subject of vital and imminent concern to the people of this state and requires appropriate action by the legislature to establish minimum standards of employment within .”

Washington v. GEO Grp., Inc., 283 F. Supp. 3d 967 (W.D. Wash. 2017). “This purpose is consistent with the legislative purpose found in the preamble to the State Minimum Wage Act, to "encourage employment opportunities within the state," RCW 49.46.005, whereas Defendant's alleged failure to observe the State minimum wage has allegedly enriched…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.005(2) — 1 case

Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, Inc., 475 P.3d 164 (Wash. 2020). “See RCW 49.46.005 (declaration of police power); see also Ass’n of Wash.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.005(a) — 3 cases

Chao Chen v. GEO Grp., Inc., 287 F. Supp. 3d 1158 (W.D. Wash. 2017).

State of Washington v. The GEO Grp. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2019).

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.