Wash. Rev. Code » Title 49 · Chapter 49.46
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.100 (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) Any employer who hinders or delays the director or his or her authorized representatives in the performance of his or her duties in the enforcement of this chapter, or refuses to admit the director or his or her authorized representatives to any place of employment, or fails to make, keep, and preserve any records as required under the provisions of this chapter, or falsifies any such record, or refuses to make any record accessible to the director or his or her authorized representatives upon demand, or refuses to furnish a sworn statement of such record or any other information required for the proper enforcement of this chapter to the director or his or her authorized representatives upon demand, or pays or agrees to pay an employee less than the employee is entitled to under this chapter, or otherwise violates any provision of this chapter or of any regulation issued under this chapter shall be deemed in violation of this chapter and shall, upon conviction therefor, be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(2) Any employer who discharges or in any other manner discriminates against any employee because such employee has made any complaint to his or her employer, to the director, or his or her authorized representatives that he or she has not been paid wages in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, or that the employer has violated any provision of this chapter, or because such employee has caused to be instituted or is about to cause to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or because such employee has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding shall be deemed in violation of this chapter and shall, upon conviction therefor, be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[ 2017 c 2 s 8 (Initiative Measure No. 1433, approved November 8, 2016); 2010 c 8 s 12044; 1959 c 294 s 10.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2017 c 2 (Initiative Measure No. 1433): See notes following RCW 49.46.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: Hume v. Am. Disposal Co., 880 P.2d 988 (Wash. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hume v. Am. Disposal Co., 880 P.2d 988 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 10× “I RCW 49.46.100 prohibits employer retaliation against employees who assert wage claims, and we have held employers who engage in such retaliation liable in tort for violation of public policy under this provision.”
Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 685 P.2d 1081 (Wash. 1984). “160 (industrial safety and health act), RCW 49.46.100 (minimum wage act), RCW 49.”
Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 1998). “Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.100 (2). Following a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs on both the federal and state causes of action and awarded $697,000 for lost wages, and $75,000 to each plaintiff for emotional distress.”
Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 913 P.2d 377 (Wash. 1996). “By contrast, none of the three policies discussed in this case—helping law enforcement, encouraging good Samaritans, and protecting human life—is embodied in any single, specific legal provision. Instead, the plaintiffs and the majority attempt to satisfy the clear public policy…”
Brundridge v. Fluor Fed. Servs., Inc., 109 Wash. App. 347 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “In Hume , four former employees brought an action alleging employer retaliation for assertion of wage claims under RCW 49.46.100. The court found that the employer retaliation regulated by the statute touched a deeply rooted local concern and therefore fell under the Garmon…”
Brundridge v. Fluor Fed. Servs. Inc., 35 P.3d 389 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “In Hume , four former employees brought an action alleging employer retaliation for assertion of wage claims under RCW 49.46.100. The court found that the employer retaliation regulated by the statute touched a deeply rooted local concern and therefore fell under the Garmon…”
Certification from United States Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Washington In Louisiana-Pac. Corp. v. Asarco Inc., 934 P.2d 685 (Wash. 1997). “Thus, "[a]bsent a statute that expressly allows expanded cost recovery . . . plaintiffs are not entitled to such generous cost awards.”
Louisiana-Pac. Corp. v. Asarco Inc., 934 P.2d 685 (Wash. 1997). “2d 988 (1994) (the court found that the cost award for tort claims based on RCW 49.46.100 is limited to the statutory costs available under RCW 4.”
Lins v. Child.'s Discovery Centers of Am., Inc., 976 P.2d 168 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “23 RCW 49.46.100(2). 24 RCW 49.78.130. 25 Bravo v.”
Chao Chen v. GEO Grp., Inc., 287 F. Supp. 3d 1158 (W.D. Wash. 2017). “090, and RCW 49.46.100. Plaintiff acknowledges that the term is undefined and argues that the term refers to a "penalty or coercive measure," whereas the Washington Minimum Wage Act only provides a remedy of monetary damages for back pay and related costs.”
Taber v. Cascade Designs Incoporated (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 4× “2020) (quoting RCW 49.46.100).9 17 8 Defendants point out (see Dkt.”
Taber v. Cascade Designs Incoporated (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 4× “2020) (quoting RCW 49.46.100).10 3 Finally, under the SWTO, “[n]o employer or any other person shall take any adverse 4 action against any person because the person has exercised in good faith the rights protected 5 under [the SWTO].”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.100(2) — 5 cases
Lins v. Child.'s Discovery Centers of Am., Inc., 976 P.2d 168 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “23 RCW 49.46.100(2). 24 RCW 49.78.130. 25 Bravo v.”
Taber v. Cascade Designs Incoporated (W.D. Wash. 2023). “2020) (quoting RCW 49.46.100).9 17 8 Defendants point out (see Dkt.”
Taber v. Cascade Designs Incoporated (W.D. Wash. 2023). “2020) (quoting RCW 49.46.100).10 3 Finally, under the SWTO, “[n]o employer or any other person shall take any adverse 4 action against any person because the person has exercised in good faith the rights protected 5 under [the SWTO].”
Maguire v. Eco Sci. Solutions, Inc (W.D. Wash. 2020).
Donald Canfield, App./cr-res. v. Michelle Clark & Sea. Pub. Schs., Res./cr-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
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.