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

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.48.084 (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) A person, firm, or corporation aggrieved by a citation and notice of assessment or a determination of compliance issued by the department under RCW 49.48.083 or the assessment of civil penalty due to a determination of status as a repeat willful violator may appeal the citation and notice of assessment, the determination of compliance, or the assessment of civil penalty to the director by filing a notice of appeal with the director within thirty days of the department's issuance of the citation and notice of assessment, the determination of compliance, or the assessment of civil penalty. A citation and notice of assessment, a determination of compliance, or an assessment of a civil penalty not appealed within thirty days is final and binding, and not subject to further appeal.
(2) A notice of appeal filed with the director under this section shall stay the effectiveness of the citation and notice of assessment, the determination of compliance, or the assessment of civil penalty pending final review of the appeal by the director as provided for in chapter 34.05 RCW.
(3) Upon receipt of a notice of appeal, the director shall assign the hearing to an administrative law judge of the office of administrative hearings to conduct the hearing and issue an initial order. The hearing and review procedures shall be conducted in accordance with chapter 34.05 RCW, and the standard of review by the administrative law judge of an appealed citation and notice of assessment, an appealed determination of compliance, or an appealed assessment of civil penalty shall be de novo. Any party who seeks to challenge an initial order shall file a petition for administrative review with the director within thirty days after service of the initial order. The director shall conduct administrative review in accordance with chapter 34.05 RCW.
(4) The director shall issue all final orders after appeal of the initial order. The final order of the director is subject to judicial review in accordance with chapter 34.05 RCW.
(5) Orders that are not appealed within the time period specified in this section and chapter 34.05 RCW are final and binding, and not subject to further appeal.
(6) An employer who fails to allow adequate inspection of records in an investigation by the department under this chapter within a reasonable time period may not use such records in any appeal under this section to challenge the correctness of any determination by the department of wages owed or penalty assessed.
[ 2010 c 42 s 3; 2006 c 89 s 3.]

Notes:

Captions not law—2006 c 89: See note following RCW 49.48.082.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2018–2026 · leading case: Charles Peiffer v. Pro-Cut Concrete Cutting & Breaking, Inc., 431 P.3d 1018 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Charles Peiffer v. Pro-Cut Concrete Cutting & Breaking, Inc., 431 P.3d 1018 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Having issued the citation and notice of assessment, the Department may order the employer to pay the complaining employee all wages owed for the three years preceding the filing of the wage complaint, including interest of one percent per month on the wages owed.”
Port Of Tacoma, V. Joel Sacks, Dept. Of L & I, 495 P.3d 866 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “Shortly thereafter, the Department filed a petition for review with the Director of the Department under RCW 49.48.084 and the Washington Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA), ch.”
Rhett Greenfield, V. Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, we do not address Greenfield’s assignment of error to the OAH’s conclusion that RCW 49.48.084(3) and the APA apply to its scope of review and jurisdiction, not Seattle municipal wage laws.”
Dep't of Lab. & Indus. v. Cannabis Green, LLC, 569 P.3d 303 (Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “RCW 49.48.084(1). Notably, the WPA does not displace the CWPEA: it explicitly preserves L&I’s power to pursue available judicial actions against employers in the absence of a wage complaint.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Cannabis Green, LLC (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 49.48.084(1). An employee who files a wage complaint and then accepts payment from the employer is barred from initiating or pursuing their own court action or proceedings based on the wages identified in the citation and notice of assessment.”
Eric W. Allen, V. State Of Washington Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “3d 699 (2005); see RCW 49.48.084(4); WAC 296-128-800(8). As the party challenging an agency action, Allen bears the burden of showing the action is invalid.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.48.084(1) — 3 cases
Charles Peiffer v. Pro-Cut Concrete Cutting & Breaking, Inc., 431 P.3d 1018 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Having issued the citation and notice of assessment, the Department may order the employer to pay the complaining employee all wages owed for the three years preceding the filing of the wage complaint, including interest of one percent per month on the wages owed.”
Dep't of Lab. & Indus. v. Cannabis Green, LLC, 569 P.3d 303 (Wash. 2025). “RCW 49.48.084(1). Notably, the WPA does not displace the CWPEA: it explicitly preserves L&I’s power to pursue available judicial actions against employers in the absence of a wage complaint.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Cannabis Green, LLC (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 49.48.084(1). An employee who files a wage complaint and then accepts payment from the employer is barred from initiating or pursuing their own court action or proceedings based on the wages identified in the citation and notice of assessment.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.48.084(3) — 1 case
Rhett Greenfield, V. Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Accordingly, we do not address Greenfield’s assignment of error to the OAH’s conclusion that RCW 49.48.084(3) and the APA apply to its scope of review and jurisdiction, not Seattle municipal wage laws.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.48.084(4) — 3 cases
Port Of Tacoma, V. Joel Sacks, Dept. Of L & I, 495 P.3d 866 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Shortly thereafter, the Department filed a petition for review with the Director of the Department under RCW 49.48.084 and the Washington Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA), ch.”
Rhett Greenfield, V. Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Accordingly, we do not address Greenfield’s assignment of error to the OAH’s conclusion that RCW 49.48.084(3) and the APA apply to its scope of review and jurisdiction, not Seattle municipal wage laws.”
Eric W. Allen, V. State Of Washington Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “3d 699 (2005); see RCW 49.48.084(4); WAC 296-128-800(8). As the party challenging an agency action, Allen bears the burden of showing the action is invalid.”
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.