Wash. Rev. Code » Title 49 · Chapter 49.48
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.48.040 (2025)

Enforcement of wage claims—Issuance of subpoenas—Compliance

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The department of labor and industries may:
(a) Upon obtaining information indicating an employer may be committing a violation under this chapter and chapters 39.12 and 49.46 RCW and associated rules, conduct investigations to ensure compliance with this chapter and chapters 39.12 and 49.46 RCW and associated rules;
(b) Order the payment of all amounts owed the workers under this chapter and chapters 39.12 and 49.46 RCW, and associated rules and institute actions necessary for the collection of the amounts determined owed; and
(c) Take assignments of claims under this chapter and chapters 39.12 and 49.46 RCW, and associated rules and prosecute actions for the collection of amounts owed of persons who are financially unable to employ counsel when in the judgment of the director of the department the claims are valid and enforceable in the courts.
(2) When the department orders the payment of all amounts owed under subsection (1)(b) of this section in an administrative order, including interest of one percent per month on all wages owed, the department may also assess penalties under RCW 49.48.083(3). The amounts and interest owed must be calculated from the first date amounts were owed to the employee, except that the department may not order the employer to pay any amounts and interest that were owed more than three years before the date the department obtained information indicating an employer may have committed violations under this chapter and chapters 39.12 and 49.46 RCW or associated rules. Appeals to administrative orders issued under this section are conducted pursuant to RCW 49.48.084. Collections of the administrative orders issued under this section are conducted pursuant to RCW 49.48.086.
(3) The director of the department or any authorized representative may, for the purpose of carrying out RCW 49.48.040 through 49.48.080: (a) Issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses or parties and the production of books, papers, or records; (b) administer oaths and examine witnesses under oath; (c) take the verification of proof of instruments of writing; and (d) take depositions and affidavits. If assignments for wage claims are taken, court costs shall not be payable by the department for prosecuting such suits.
(4) The director shall have a seal inscribed "Department of Labor and Industries—State of Washington" and all courts shall take judicial notice of such seal. Obedience to subpoenas issued by the director or authorized representative shall be enforced by the courts in any county.
(5) The director or authorized representative shall have free access to all places and works of labor. Any employer or any agent or employee of such employer who refuses the director or authorized representative admission therein, or who, when requested by the director or authorized representative, willfully neglects or refuses to furnish the director or authorized representative any statistics or information pertaining to his or her lawful duties, which statistics or information may be in his or her possession or under the control of the employer or agent, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
[ 2026 c 176 s 1; 1987 c 172 s 1; 1935 c 96 s 1; RRS s 7596-1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Overnite Transp. Co., 834 P.2d 638 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Overnite Transp. Co., 834 P.2d 638 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “The Department brought this action pursuant to its de jure authority under RCW 49.48.040(1)(b). 8 Because the Department presented no evidence that it had taken written assignments of the employees' wage claims, Ovemite contends that the Department does not qualify as an…”
Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 961 P.2d 371 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 49.48.040—.070. [1] The Legislature also established a remedy of exemplary damages if an employer willfully refuses to pay wages.”
Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wash. 2d 152 (1998). “RCW 49.48.040-,070. 1 The Legislature also established a remedy of exemplary damages if an employer willfully refuses to pay wages.”
Naches Vly. Sch. Dist. v. Cruzen, 775 P.2d 960 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “96, § 5, which provides in part: Nothing in RCW 49.48.040 through 49.48.080 shall apply to the payment of wages .”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Cannabis Green, LLC, 544 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 32× “The CWPEA In 1935, the legislature permitted DLI to become involved in wage claims between private employers and private employees through the CWPEA. The original version of the act granted the director of DLI the discretion to “[t]ake assignments of wage claims and prosecute…”
Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 46 v. City of Everett, 6 P.3d 50 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “][ 12 ] On appeal, Overnite argued that this statute did not afford attorney fees to DLI because it was not an assignee of the employees’ wage claims but merely represented the employees in its de jure authority under RCW 49.48.040(1)(b). 13 We disagreed, and stated that: in…”
D.W. Close Co. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 143 Wash. App. 118 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “” RCW 49.48.040(1). According to this statute, the Department may undertake an Act investigation upon receiving any information about a possible violation, regardless of the source.”
Naches Valley Sch. Dist. No. JT3 v. Cruzen, 54 Wash. App. 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “96, § 5, which provides in part: Nothing in RCW 49.48.040 through 49.48.080 shall apply to the payment of wages .”
Dw Close Co. v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 177 P.3d 143 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “" RCW 49.48.040(1). According to this statute, the Department may undertake a Prevailing Wage Act investigation upon receiving any information about a possible violation, regardless of the source.”
SPEEA v. Boeing Co., 991 P.2d 1126 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 49.48.040—.070. The Legislature also established a remedy of exemplary damages if an employer willfully refuses to pay wages.”
Dep't of Lab. & Indus. v. Cannabis Green, LLC, 569 P.3d 303 (Wash. 2025). · cites it 27× “L&I files complaint against Cannabis Green under RCW 49.48.040; trial court grants Cannabis Green’s summary judgment motion In May 2022, L&I filed a complaint against Cannabis Green on behalf of “affected workers including all current and former non-exempt employees” who worked…”
Morrison v. Basin Asphalt Co., 127 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “It stands in the shoes of employees and acts in a representative capacity on their behalf by virtue of its de jure authority under RCW 49.48.040(l)(b). Id. at 36 . The distinction made by the employees is without a difference.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Wash. Rev. Code § 49.48.040(1): 3 cases
D.W. Close Co. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 143 Wash. App. 118 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “” RCW 49.48.040(1). According to this statute, the Department may undertake an Act investigation upon receiving any information about a possible violation, regardless of the source.”
Dw Close Co. v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 177 P.3d 143 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “" RCW 49.48.040(1). According to this statute, the Department may undertake a Prevailing Wage Act investigation upon receiving any information about a possible violation, regardless of the source.”
Dep't of Lab. & Indus. v. Cannabis Green, LLC, 569 P.3d 303 (Wash. 2025). “L&I files complaint against Cannabis Green under RCW 49.48.040; trial court grants Cannabis Green’s summary judgment motion In May 2022, L&I filed a complaint against Cannabis Green on behalf of “affected workers including all current and former non-exempt employees” who worked…”
Wash. Rev. Code § 49.48.040(1)(a): 1 case
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Cannabis Green, LLC, 544 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “The CWPEA In 1935, the legislature permitted DLI to become involved in wage claims between private employers and private employees through the CWPEA. The original version of the act granted the director of DLI the discretion to “[t]ake assignments of wage claims and prosecute…”
Wash. Rev. Code § 49.48.040(1)(b): 6 cases
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Overnite Transp. Co., 834 P.2d 638 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “The Department brought this action pursuant to its de jure authority under RCW 49.48.040(1)(b). 8 Because the Department presented no evidence that it had taken written assignments of the employees' wage claims, Ovemite contends that the Department does not qualify as an…”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Cannabis Green, LLC, 544 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “The CWPEA In 1935, the legislature permitted DLI to become involved in wage claims between private employers and private employees through the CWPEA. The original version of the act granted the director of DLI the discretion to “[t]ake assignments of wage claims and prosecute…”
Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 46 v. City of Everett, 6 P.3d 50 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “][ 12 ] On appeal, Overnite argued that this statute did not afford attorney fees to DLI because it was not an assignee of the employees’ wage claims but merely represented the employees in its de jure authority under RCW 49.48.040(1)(b). 13 We disagreed, and stated that: in…”
Dep't of Lab. & Indus. v. Cannabis Green, LLC, 569 P.3d 303 (Wash. 2025). “L&I files complaint against Cannabis Green under RCW 49.48.040; trial court grants Cannabis Green’s summary judgment motion In May 2022, L&I filed a complaint against Cannabis Green on behalf of “affected workers including all current and former non-exempt employees” who worked…”
Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 46 v. City of Everett, 6 P.3d 50 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
Wash. Rev. Code § 49.48.040(l)(b): 1 case
Morrison v. Basin Asphalt Co., 127 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “It stands in the shoes of employees and acts in a representative capacity on their behalf by virtue of its de jure authority under RCW 49.48.040(l)(b). Id. at 36 . The distinction made by the employees is without a difference.”
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.