Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130 (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) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his or her employees for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his or her employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he or she is employed.

(2) This section does not apply to:

(a) Any person exempted pursuant to *RCW 49.46.010(3). The payment of compensation or provision of compensatory time off in addition to a salary shall not be a factor in determining whether a person is exempted under *RCW 49.46.010(3)(c);

(b) Employees who request compensating time off in lieu of overtime pay;

(d) Seasonal employees who are employed at concessions and recreational establishments at agricultural fairs, including those seasonal employees employed by agricultural fairs, within the state provided that the period of employment for any seasonal employee at any or all agricultural fairs does not exceed fourteen working days a year;

(e) Any individual employed as a motion picture projectionist if that employee is covered by a contract or collective bargaining agreement which regulates hours of work and overtime pay;

(f) An individual employed as a truck or bus driver who is subject to the provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Act (49 U.S.C. Sec. 3101 et seq. and 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10101 et seq.), if the compensation system under which the truck or bus driver is paid includes overtime pay, reasonably equivalent to that required by this subsection, for working longer than forty hours per week;

(g) Any individual employed as an agricultural employee. This exemption from subsection (1) of this section applies only until December 31, 2021;

(h) Any industry in which federal law provides for an overtime payment based on a workweek other than forty hours. However, the provisions of the federal law regarding overtime payment based on a workweek other than forty hours shall nevertheless apply to employees covered by this section without regard to the existence of actual federal jurisdiction over the industrial activity of the particular employer within this state. For the purposes of this subsection, "industry" means a trade, business, industry, or other activity, or branch, or group thereof, in which individuals are gainfully employed (section 3(h) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (Public Law 93-259));

(i) Any hours worked by an employee of a carrier by air subject to the provisions of subchapter II of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. Sec. 181 et seq.), when such hours are voluntarily worked by the employee pursuant to a shift-trading practice under which the employee has the opportunity in the same or in other workweeks to reduce hours worked by voluntarily offering a shift for trade or reassignment; and

(j) Any individual licensed under chapter 18.85 RCW unless the individual is providing real estate brokerage services under a written contract with a real estate firm which provides that the individual is an employee. For purposes of this subsection (2)(j), "real estate brokerage services" and "real estate firm" mean the same as defined in RCW 18.85.011.

(3) No employer shall be deemed to have violated subsection (1) of this section by employing any employee of a retail or service establishment for a workweek in excess of the applicable workweek specified in subsection (1) of this section if:

(a) The regular rate of pay of the employee is in excess of one and one-half times the minimum hourly rate required under RCW 49.46.020; and

(b) More than half of the employee's compensation for a representative period, of not less than one month, represents commissions on goods or services.

In determining the proportion of compensation representing commissions, all earnings resulting from the application of a bona fide commission rate is to be deemed commissions on goods or services without regard to whether the computed commissions exceed the draw or guarantee.

(4) No employer of commissioned salespeople primarily engaged in the business of selling automobiles, trucks, recreational vessels, recreational vessel trailers, recreational vehicle trailers, recreational campers, manufactured housing, or farm implements to ultimate purchasers shall violate subsection (1) of this section with respect to such commissioned salespeople if the commissioned salespeople are paid the greater of:

(a) Compensation at the hourly rate, which may not be less than the rate required under RCW 49.46.020, 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

(b) A straight commission, a salary plus commission, or a salary plus bonus applied to gross salary.

(5) No public agency shall be deemed to have violated subsection (1) of this section with respect to the employment of any employee in fire protection activities or any employee in law enforcement activities (including security personnel in correctional institutions) if: (a) In a work period of twenty-eight consecutive days the employee receives for tours of duty which in the aggregate exceed two hundred forty hours; or (b) in the case of such an employee to whom a work period of at least seven but less than twenty-eight days applies, in his or her work period the employee receives for tours of duty which in the aggregate exceed a number of hours which bears the same ratio to the number of consecutive days in his or her work period as two hundred forty hours bears to twenty-eight days; compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he or she is employed.

(6)(a) Beginning January 1, 2022, any agricultural employee shall not be employed for more than 55 hours in any one workweek unless the agricultural employee receives one and one-half times that agricultural employee's regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 55 in any one workweek.

(b) Beginning January 1, 2023, any agricultural employee shall not be employed for more than 48 hours in any one workweek unless the agricultural employee receives one and one-half times that agricultural employee's regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 48 in any one workweek.

(c) Beginning January 1, 2024, any agricultural employee shall not be employed for more than 40 hours in any one workweek unless the agricultural employee receives one and one-half times that agricultural employee's regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in any one workweek.

(7)(a) No damages, statutory or civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, or other type of relief may be granted against an employer to an agricultural or dairy employee seeking unpaid overtime due to the employee's historical exclusion from overtime under subsection (2)(g) of this section, as it existed on November 4, 2020.

(b) This subsection applies to all claims, causes of actions, and proceedings commenced on or after November 5, 2020, regardless of when the claim or cause of action arose. To this extent, this subsection applies retroactively, but in all other respects it applies prospectively.

(c) This subsection does not apply to dairy employees entitled to back pay or other relief as a result of being a member in the class of plaintiffs in Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, 196 Wn.2d 506 (2020).

(8) For the purposes of this section, "agricultural employee" means any individual employed: (a) On a farm, in the employ of any person, in connection with the cultivation of the soil, or in connection with raising or harvesting any agricultural or horticultural commodity, including raising, shearing, feeding, caring for, training, and management of livestock, bees, poultry, and furbearing animals and wildlife, or in the employ of the owner or tenant or other operator of a farm in connection with the operation, management, conservation, improvement, or maintenance of such farm and its tools and equipment; (b) in packing, packaging, grading, storing or delivering to storage, or to market or to a carrier for transportation to market, any agricultural or horticultural commodity; or (c) [in] commercial canning, commercial freezing, or any other commercial processing, or with respect to services performed in connection with the cultivation, raising, harvesting, and processing of oysters or in connection with any agricultural or horticultural commodity after its delivery to a terminal market for distribution for consumption. An agricultural employee does not include a dairy employee.

(9) For the purposes of this section, "dairy employee" includes any employee engaged in dairy cattle and milk production activities described in code 112120 of the North American industry classification system.

[ 2021 c 249 s 2; 2013 c 207 s 1; 2010 c 8 s 12045; 1998 c 239 s 2. Prior: 1997 c 311 s 1; 1997 c 203 s 2; 1995 c 5 s 1; 1993 c 191 s 1; 1992 c 94 s 1; 1989 c 104 s 1; prior: 1977 ex.s. c 4 s 1; 1977 ex.s. c 74 s 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 289 s 3.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 49.46.010 was alphabetized pursuant to RCW 1.08.015(2)(k), changing subsection (3) to subsection (4).

Intent—2021 c 249: "In order to stabilize, strengthen, and protect our state's agricultural workforce and economy, it is the intent of the legislature to pass the laws necessary to protect farmworkers and to provide agricultural employers with certainty and predictability.

The legislature intends to address the historical exceptions of agricultural work from overtime standards from both the federal fair labor standards act and the state minimum wage act when they were enacted over 60 years ago. Excluded from the opportunity to earn overtime pay, farmworkers across our state remain among our state's poorest workers. A United States department of labor study in 2016 found that nationally, 30 percent of farmworker families live below the poverty line, almost double the poverty rate of American families overall. The state department of health found that the current novel coronavirus pandemic has had a significant and disproportionate impact on farmworkers. The virus' risks to essential farmworkers from potential workplace exposures are compounded by systemic barriers to testing, prevention measures, and medical care.

The legislature also intends to avoid disruptions within the state's vital agricultural sector. While Washington is well-known as the national leader in apple production, the state's agricultural sector is incredibly diverse: Over 300 crops are harvested, and a variety of livestock are raised on over 35,000 farms across the state. The robust size of our agricultural sector means our state overall ranks in the top 10 nationally in the size of our farm labor force. Agriculture is a cornerstone of our state economy. Uncertainty from recent legal decisions regarding overtime standards are compounding the pandemic's disruptions to the food chain and the safety challenges of operating during a public health crisis.

The legislature intends to provide clear overtime standards to reduce litigation between parties in this key sector of the state's economy during the challenges and additional costs brought on by the novel coronavirus and to protect the security of our food supply chain. This act's transitional approach is reasonable to achieve the legislature's purpose of increasing the safety of an at risk and essential workforce, increasing the public welfare of low-income individuals by removing a historical barrier to their earning potential, and maintaining the food security and economic security provided by a stable agricultural sector." [ 2021 c 249 s 1.]

Findings—Intent—1998 c 239: "The legislature finds that employees in the airline industry have a long-standing practice and tradition of trading shifts voluntarily among themselves. The legislature also finds that federal law exempts airline employees from the provisions of federal overtime regulations. This act is intended to specify that airline industry employers are not required to pay overtime compensation to an employee agreeing to work additional hours for a coemployee." [ 1998 c 239 s 1.]

Intent—Collective bargaining agreements—1998 c 239: "This act does not alter the terms, conditions, or practices contained in any collective bargaining agreement." [ 1998 c 239 s 3.]

Retroactive application—1998 c 239: "This act is remedial in nature and applies retroactively." [ 1998 c 239 s 4.]

Severability—1998 c 239: "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." [ 1998 c 239 s 5.]

Construction—1997 c 203: "Nothing in this act shall be construed to alter the terms, conditions, or practices contained in any collective bargaining agreement in effect at the time of the effective date of this act [July 27, 1997] until the expiration date of such agreement." [ 1997 c 203 s 4.]

Intent—Application—1995 c 5: "This act is intended to clarify the original intent of RCW 49.46.010(5)(c). This act applies to all administrative and judicial actions commenced on or after February 1, 1995, and pending on March 30, 1995, and such actions commenced on or after March 30, 1995." [ 1995 c 5 s 2.]

Effective date—1995 c 5: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [March 30, 1995]." [ 1995 c 5 s 3.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 118 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · 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 76× “RCW 49.46.130; Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc.”

Bostain v. Food Express, Inc., 159 Wash. 2d 700 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 71× “RCW 49.46.130; Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc.”

Cerrillo v. Esparza, 142 P.3d 155 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 43× “130(2)(g)(ii) is not ambiguous ¶ 7 RCW 49.46.130(1), part of Washington's MWA, outlines the general requirement that employers must pay overtime wages: Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his employees for a work week longer than forty…”

Cerrillo v. Esparza, 158 Wash. 2d 194 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 41× “The order granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment also drew the conclusion of law that “[d]efendants at no time had a compensation system in place that included reasonably equivalent overtime wages after 40 hours of work pursuant to RCW 49.46.130(2X0 and WAC…”

Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 93 P.3d 108 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 20× “Statutorily Mandated Overtime Compensation Is Based on Hourly Wage as Negotiated in Employment Contract The MWA requires employers to pay an employee at least "one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed " for every hour that employee works in excess of 40…”

Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 151 Wash. 2d 853 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 19× “Statutorily Mandated Overtime Compensation Is Based on Hourly Wage as Negotiated in Employment Contract The MWA requires employers to pay an employee at least “one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed” for every hour that employee works in excess of 40…”

Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, Inc., 475 P.3d 164 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 27× “1, § 1, they continued to be exempt from RCW 49.46.130’s overtime compensation requirement.”

Stahl v. Delicor of Puget Sound, Inc., 64 P.3d 10 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 20× “Analysis The central issue concerns the interpretation of RCW 49.46.130 as applied to nonsales related employees like Stahl.”

Stahl v. Delicor of Puget Sound, Inc., 148 Wash. 2d 876 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 20× “Analysis The central issue concerns the interpretation of RCW 49.46.130 as applied to nonsales related employees like Stahl.”

Inniss v. Tandy Corp., 7 P.3d 807 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 24× “130(1) 26 In 1975, the Legislature enacted RCW 49.46.130 to conform state minimum wage laws to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.”

Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 159 Wash. App. 35 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “Neither the presence nor the absence of any individual factor is determinative[ 20 ] ¶20 The overtime wage provision of the MWA that is primarily at issue for purposes of Instruction 9 is former RCW 49.46.130 (1998). That statute states in relevant part: (1) Except as otherwise…”

Bostain v. Food Express, Inc., 111 P.3d 906 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 20× “We must interpret RCW 49.46.130 of the WMWA, chapter 49.46 RCW.”

Show all 118 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(1) — 58 cases

Bostain v. Food Exp., Inc., 153 P.3d 846 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 49.46.130; Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc.”

Bostain v. Food Express, Inc., 159 Wash. 2d 700 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 49.46.130; Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc.”

Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 93 P.3d 108 (Wash. 2004). “Statutorily Mandated Overtime Compensation Is Based on Hourly Wage as Negotiated in Employment Contract The MWA requires employers to pay an employee at least "one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed " for every hour that employee works in excess of 40…”

Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 151 Wash. 2d 853 (Wash. 2004). “Statutorily Mandated Overtime Compensation Is Based on Hourly Wage as Negotiated in Employment Contract The MWA requires employers to pay an employee at least “one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed” for every hour that employee works in excess of 40…”

Inniss v. Tandy Corp., 7 P.3d 807 (Wash. 2000). “130(1) 26 In 1975, the Legislature enacted RCW 49.46.130 to conform state minimum wage laws to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(2) — 16 cases

Cerrillo v. Esparza, 158 Wash. 2d 194 (Wash. 2006). “The order granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment also drew the conclusion of law that “[d]efendants at no time had a compensation system in place that included reasonably equivalent overtime wages after 40 hours of work pursuant to RCW 49.46.130(2X0 and WAC…”

Cerrillo v. Esparza, 142 P.3d 155 (Wash. 2006). “130(2)(g)(ii) is not ambiguous ¶ 7 RCW 49.46.130(1), part of Washington's MWA, outlines the general requirement that employers must pay overtime wages: Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his employees for a work week longer than forty…”

Berrocal v. Fernandez, 121 P.3d 82 (Wash. 2005).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(2)(a) — 12 cases

Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, Inc., 475 P.3d 164 (Wash. 2020). “1, § 1, they continued to be exempt from RCW 49.46.130’s overtime compensation requirement.”

Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 996 P.2d 582 (Wash. 2000).

Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 140 Wash. 2d 291 (Wash. 2000).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(2)(d) — 2 cases

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(2)(f) — 14 cases

Bostain v. Food Express, Inc., 159 Wash. 2d 700 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 49.46.130; Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc.”

Bostain v. Food Exp., Inc., 153 P.3d 846 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 49.46.130; Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc.”

Schneider v. Snyder's Foods, Inc., 66 P.3d 640 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(2)(g) — 6 cases

Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, Inc., 475 P.3d 164 (Wash. 2020). “1, § 1, they continued to be exempt from RCW 49.46.130’s overtime compensation requirement.”

Cascade Floral Prod., Inc. v. Dep. of Labor & Indus., 177 P.3d 124 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

Cascade Floral Prods., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash. App. 613 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(2)(g)(i) — 3 cases

Cerrillo v. Esparza, 109 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(2)(g)(ii) — 6 cases

Cerrillo v. Esparza, 109 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

Elliott v. Custom Apple Packers, Inc., 228 P.3d 20 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

Skau v. JBS Carriers, Inc (W.D. Wash. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(2)(g)(iii) — 2 cases

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(2)(h) — 5 cases

Stahl v. Delicor of Puget Sound, Inc., 64 P.3d 10 (Wash. 2003). “Analysis The central issue concerns the interpretation of RCW 49.46.130 as applied to nonsales related employees like Stahl.”

Stahl v. Delicor of Puget Sound, Inc., 148 Wash. 2d 876 (Wash. 2003). “Analysis The central issue concerns the interpretation of RCW 49.46.130 as applied to nonsales related employees like Stahl.”

Stahl v. Delicor of Puget Sound, Inc., 34 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(3) — 10 cases

Stahl v. Delicor of Puget Sound, Inc., 64 P.3d 10 (Wash. 2003). “Analysis The central issue concerns the interpretation of RCW 49.46.130 as applied to nonsales related employees like Stahl.”

Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 159 Wash. App. 35 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Neither the presence nor the absence of any individual factor is determinative[ 20 ] ¶20 The overtime wage provision of the MWA that is primarily at issue for purposes of Instruction 9 is former RCW 49.46.130 (1998). That statute states in relevant part: (1) Except as otherwise…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(3)(a) — 3 cases

Stahl v. Delicor of Puget Sound, Inc., 64 P.3d 10 (Wash. 2003). “Analysis The central issue concerns the interpretation of RCW 49.46.130 as applied to nonsales related employees like Stahl.”

Inniss v. Tandy Corp., 7 P.3d 807 (Wash. 2000). “130(1) 26 In 1975, the Legislature enacted RCW 49.46.130 to conform state minimum wage laws to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.”

Inniss v. Tandy Corp., 7 P.3d 807 (Wash. 2000).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(4) — 1 case

Stahl v. Delicor of Puget Sound, Inc., 34 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(4)(a) — 2 cases

Inniss v. Tandy Corp., 7 P.3d 807 (Wash. 2000). “130(1) 26 In 1975, the Legislature enacted RCW 49.46.130 to conform state minimum wage laws to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.”

Inniss v. Tandy Corp., 7 P.3d 807 (Wash. 2000).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(a) — 1 case

Helde v. Knight Transp., Inc., 982 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (W.D. Wash. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(f) — 3 cases

Bostain v. Food Express, Inc., 127 Wash. App. 499 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

Sampson v. Knight Transp., Inc (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Carlson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, LLC (W.D. Wash. 2023).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130(l) — 1 case

Bostain v. Food Express, Inc., 159 Wash. 2d 700 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 49.46.130; Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc.”

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.