Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.005 (2026)
Findings—Intent
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The legislature finds that despite existing equal pay laws, there continues to be a gap in wages and advancement opportunities among workers in Washington, especially women and workers in other protected classes. Income disparities limit the ability of these workers to provide for their families, leading to higher rates of poverty among women and children and workers in other protected classes. The legislature finds that in order to promote fairness among workers, employees must be compensated equitably. Further, policies that encourage retaliation or discipline towards workers who discuss or inquire about compensation prevent workers from moving forward.
(2) The legislature intends to update the existing Washington state equal pay act, not modified since 1943, to address income disparities, employer discrimination, and retaliation practices, and to reflect the equal status of all workers in Washington state.
(3) The legislature finds that:
(a) The long-held business practice of inquiring about salary history has contributed to persistent earning inequalities;
(b) Historically, women have been offered lower initial pay than men for the same jobs even where their levels of education and experience are the same or comparable; and
(c) Lower starting salaries translate into lower pay, less family income, and more children and families in poverty.
(4) The legislature therefore intends to follow multiple other states and take the additional step towards gender equality by prohibiting an employer from seeking the wage or salary history of an applicant for employment in certain circumstances. Further, the legislature intends to require an employer to provide wage and salary information to applicants and employees.
Notes:
Effective date—2024 c 353: See note following RCW 49.58.020.
Short title—2019 c 345: "This chapter may be known and cited as the Washington equal pay and opportunities act." [ 2019 c 345 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 2021–2025 · leading case: Branson v. Wash. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC (Wash. 2025).
Branson v. Wash. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC (Wash. 2025). “090, L&I is authorized to adopt rules to implement RCW 49.58.005 and 49.58.020-.060. Total Wine states that although RCW 49.”
Spencer v. Vera Whole Health Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024). “” RCW 49.58.005. The law was updated “to address income 10 disparities, employer discrimination, and retaliation practices, and to reflect the equal status of all 11 workers in Washington state.”
Kent v. HCL Tech. Ltd. (W.D. Wash. 2024). “” RCW 49.58.005. The law was updated “to address income 10 disparities, employer discrimination, and retaliation practices, and to reflect the equal status of all 11 workers in Washington state.”
Hill v. ACV Auctions Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025). “” RCW 49.58.005. The law was updated “to address income 9 disparities, employer discrimination, and retaliation practices, and to reflect the equal status of all 10 workers in Washington state.”
Milito v. Snap Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025). “” RCW 49.58.005. The law was updated “to address income 10 disparities, employer discrimination, and retaliation practices, and to reflect the equal status of all 11 workers in Washington state.”
Milito (W.D. Wash. 2025). “” 10 RCW 49.58.005. The law was updated “to address income disparities, employer 11 discrimination, and retaliation practices, and to reflect the equal status of all 12 workers in Washington state.”
Nyannor (W.D. Wash. 2025). “” 14 RCW 49.58.005. The law was updated “to address income disparities, employer 15 discrimination, and retaliation practices, and to reflect the equal status of all 16 workers in Washington state.”
Milito (W.D. Wash. 2025). “” 9 RCW 49.58.005. The law was updated “to address income disparities, employer 10 discrimination, and retaliation practices, and to reflect the equal status of all 11 workers in Washington state.”
Hill (W.D. Wash. 2025). “” 10 RCW 49.58.005. The law was updated “to address income disparities, employer 11 discrimination, and retaliation practices, and to reflect the equal status of all 12 workers in Washington state.”
Floyd v. Insight Global LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “” RCW 49.58.005. The law was 12 updated “to address income disparities, employer discrimination, and retaliation practices, and to 13 reflect the equal status of all workers in Washington state.”
Atkinson v. Aaron's LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “” RCW 49.58.005. The law was 13 updated “to address income disparities, employer discrimination, and retaliation practices, and to 14 reflect the equal status of all workers in Washington state.”
Atkinson v. Aaron's LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “” RCW 49.58.005. The law was 15 updated “to address income disparities, employer discrimination, and retaliation practices, and to 16 reflect the equal status of all workers in Washington state.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.005(1): 2 cases
Branson v. Wash. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC (Wash. 2025). “090, L&I is authorized to adopt rules to implement RCW 49.58.005 and 49.58.020-.060. Total Wine states that although RCW 49.”
Patrick Kelley, V. The Boeing Co., Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.005(2): 1 case
Branson v. Wash. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC (Wash. 2025). “090, L&I is authorized to adopt rules to implement RCW 49.58.005 and 49.58.020-.060. Total Wine states that although RCW 49.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.005(4): 1 case
Branson v. Wash. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC (Wash. 2025). “090, L&I is authorized to adopt rules to implement RCW 49.58.005 and 49.58.020-.060. Total Wine states that although RCW 49.”
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.