Wash. Rev. Code » Title 49 · Chapter 49.52
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.52.070 (2026)

Civil liability for double damages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any employer and any officer, vice principal or agent of any employer who shall violate any of the provisions of RCW 49.52.050 (1) and (2) shall be liable in a civil action by the aggrieved employee or his or her assignee to judgment for twice the amount of the wages unlawfully rebated or withheld by way of exemplary damages, together with costs of suit and a reasonable sum for attorney's fees: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the benefits of this section shall not be available to any employee who has knowingly submitted to such violations.
[ 2010 c 8 s 12056; 1939 c 195 s 3; RRS s 7612-23.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 234 cases (53 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 961 P.2d 371 (Wash. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 961 P.2d 371 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 23× “The King County Superior Court granted summary judgment to Schilling on her claim for double damages pursuant to RCW 49.52.070, which provides for such damages when an employer willfully withholds wages due an employee.”
Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wash. 2d 152 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 23× “The King County Superior Court granted summary judgment to Schilling on her claim for double damages pursuant to RCW 49.52.070, which provides for such damages when an employer willfully withholds wages due an employee.”
Lillig v. Becton-Dickinson, 717 P.2d 1371 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 27× “We find no evidence in the record sufficient to overcome the defendant's qualified privilege and we find sufficient evidence of a bona fide dispute adequate to uphold a denial of exemplary damages. We, therefore, affirm the Court of Appeals.”
Hill v. Garda CL Nw., Inc., 424 P.3d 207 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 18× “010 and double exemplary damages under RCW 49.52.070 for the same wage violation.”
Jumamil v. Lakeside Casino, LLC, 319 P.3d 868 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 22× “050 and RCW 49.52.070. Jumamil initially filed various wage claims against Lakeside Casino LLC, d/b/a Freddie’s Club Casino of Fife (Casino), her former place of employment; Coon, the Casino’s sole limited liability company (LLC) manager; and West, one of the Casino’s poker room…”
Morgan v. Kingen, 210 P.3d 995 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 15× “050 and RCW 49.52.070 respectively set out the criminal and civil penalty mandated where any employer or officer, vice principal, or agent of any employer willfully and with intent deprives the employee of any part of his or her wages.”
Morgan v. Kingen, 166 Wash. 2d 526 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 15× “050 and RCW 49.52.070 respectively set out the criminal and civil penalty mandated where any employer or officer, vice principal, or agent of any employer willfully and with intent deprives the employee of any part of his or her wages.”
Durand v. Himc Corp., 214 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 13× “52 RCW, arguing that the corporations and individuals named in the complaint were liable for double damages under RCW 49.52.070. He demanded (1) severance in the form of his future salary for the remaining time under the five-year term at $12,500 per month ($618,750), (2) his…”
Durand v. HIMC Corp., 151 Wash. App. 818 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 13× “52 RCW, arguing that the corporations and individuals named in the complaint were hable for double damages under RCW 49.52.070. He demanded (1) severance in the form of his future salary for the remaining time under the five-year term at $12,500.”
Champagne v. Thurston Cnty., 178 P.3d 936 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 10× “Correction Officers alleged in their complaint only that they were entitled to double damages under RCW 49.52.070. In so doing, they failed to state an actionable claim because, under Washington's wage-and-hour laws, employees are entitled to damages only where an employer has…”
Morgan v. Kingen, 169 P.3d 487 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 14× “¶ 1 A critical test in an action for unpaid wages under RCW 49.52.070 is whether the employer's failure to pay wages is "willful.”
Champagne v. Thurston Cnty., 163 Wash. 2d 69 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 9× “Correction Officers alleged in their complaint only that they were entitled to double damages under RCW 49.52.070. In so doing, they failed to state an actionable claim because, under Washington’s wage-and-hour laws, employees are entitled to damages only where an employer has…”
Show all 234 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.52.070(2) — 1 case
Cathleen Robertson, V. Valley Commc'ns Ctr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
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.