Wash. Rev. Code » Title 49 · Chapter 49.58
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.020 (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) Any employer in this state who discriminates in any way in providing compensation based on a person's gender or membership in a protected class between similarly employed employees of the employer is guilty of a misdemeanor. If any employee receives less compensation because of discrimination on account of the person's gender or membership in a protected class in violation of this section, that employee is entitled to the remedies in RCW 49.58.060 and 49.58.070. In such action, however, the employer shall be credited with any compensation which has been paid to the employee upon account.
(2) For purposes of this section, employees are similarly employed if the individuals work for the same employer, the performance of the job requires similar skill, effort, and responsibility, and the jobs are performed under similar working conditions. Job titles alone are not determinative of whether employees are similarly employed.
(3)(a) Discrimination within the meaning of this section does not include a differential in compensation based in good faith on a bona fide job-related factor or factors that:
(i) Are consistent with business necessity;
(ii) Are not based on or derived from a gender-based differential and are not based on or derived from the employee being a member of a protected class; and
(iii) Account for the entire differential. More than one factor may account for the differential.
(b) Such bona fide factors include, but are not limited to:
(i) Education, training, or experience;
(ii) A seniority system;
(iii) A merit system;
(iv) A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or
(v) A bona fide regional difference in compensation levels.
(c) A differential in compensation based in good faith on a local government ordinance providing for a minimum wage different from state law does not constitute discrimination under this section.
(d) An individual's previous wage or salary history is not a defense under this section.
(e) The employer carries the burden of proof on these defenses.
(4) A person may file a complaint or bring an action under this chapter asserting discrimination based on the person's membership in more than one protected class.
[ 2024 c 353 s 3; 2018 c 116 s 3; 1943 c 254 s 1; Rem. Supp. 1943 s 7636-1. Formerly RCW 49.12.175, 49.12.210.]

Notes:

Effective date—2024 c 353: "This act takes effect July 1, 2025." [ 2024 c 353 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case: Mundell v. Acadia Hosp. Corp., 92 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mundell v. Acadia Hosp. Corp., 92 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “19 In fact, Washington courts have recognized explicitly that the state's pay- equity statute is to be interpreted in lockstep with the FEPA -- strongly suggesting that Washington’s statute does not require an employee to establish discriminatory intent.”
Gardner v. Wells Fargo Bank NA (E.D. Wash. 2021). · cites it 5× “7 As an initial matter, it appears the parties continue to dispute whether 8 Plaintiff’s claim is brought under the current version of the statute as amended in 9 2018 (RCW 49.58.020) or the pre-amendment version (RCW 49.”
Wilmuth v. Amazon.com Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 3× “The relevant EPOA provision, 14 RCW 49.58.020, does not use the term “establishment” or otherwise implement a 15 “single establishment” rule.”
Gardner v. Wells Fargo Bank NA (E.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 2× “” 20 RCW 49.58.020. These remedies include state investigation and a private right of 1 action for actual damages, statutory damages, interest on compensation owed, and 2 costs and attorney’s fees.”
Lavelle v. CL West Mgmt. LLC (E.D. Wash. 2022). “” 19 RCW 49.58.020(2). 20 1 Plaintiff asserts male employees were paid more for the same job 2 immediately prior to and after Plaintiff’s employment.”
Norwood v. Grays Harbor Cmty. Hosp. (W.D. Wash. 2022). “Code § 49.58.020; and the Washington Wage Law Against Discrimination, Wash.”
Anstead v. Virginia Mason Med. Ctr. (W.D. Wash. 2022). “Further, she alleges that defendants violated WLAD, RCW 49.58.020, and Title 20 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.”
Anstead v. Virginia Mason Med. Ctr. (W.D. Wash. 2022). “Further, she alleges that defendants violated WLAD, RCW 49.58.020, and Title 14 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.”
Floyd v. Insight Global LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “070 specifically states that “an employee may 6 bring a civil action against an employer for violation of RCW 49.58.020 and 49.58.030 through 7 49.”
Atkinson v. Aaron's LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “070 specifically states that “an employee may bring a 23 civil action against an employer for violation of RCW 49.58.020 and 49.58.030 through 49.58.”
Atkinson v. Aaron's LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “070 specifically states that “an employee may bring a 2 civil action against an employer for violation of RCW 49.58.020 and 49.58.030 through 49.58.”
Floyd v. Insight Global LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “070 specifically states that “an employee may 8 bring a civil action against an employer for violation of RCW 49.58.020 and 49.58.030 through 9 49.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.020(1) — 3 cases
Wilmuth v. Amazon.com Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024). “The relevant EPOA provision, 14 RCW 49.58.020, does not use the term “establishment” or otherwise implement a 15 “single establishment” rule.”
Russell v. T-Mobile USA Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025).
Roberson v. SEIU Healthcare 1199NW (W.D. Wash. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.020(2) — 3 cases
Gardner v. Wells Fargo Bank NA (E.D. Wash. 2021). “7 As an initial matter, it appears the parties continue to dispute whether 8 Plaintiff’s claim is brought under the current version of the statute as amended in 9 2018 (RCW 49.58.020) or the pre-amendment version (RCW 49.”
Lavelle v. CL West Mgmt. LLC (E.D. Wash. 2022). “” 19 RCW 49.58.020(2). 20 1 Plaintiff asserts male employees were paid more for the same job 2 immediately prior to and after Plaintiff’s employment.”
Schuller v. E. Washington Univ. (E.D. Wash. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.020(3) — 1 case
Gardner v. Wells Fargo Bank NA (E.D. Wash. 2021). “7 As an initial matter, it appears the parties continue to dispute whether 8 Plaintiff’s claim is brought under the current version of the statute as amended in 9 2018 (RCW 49.58.020) or the pre-amendment version (RCW 49.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.020(3)(b) — 1 case
Branson v. Wash. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC (Wash. 2025).
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.