Wash. Rev. Code » Title 49 · Chapter 49.60
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.210 (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) It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by this chapter, or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter.
(2) It is an unfair practice for a government agency or government manager or supervisor to retaliate against a whistleblower as defined in chapter 42.40 RCW.
(3) It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, government agency, government manager, or government supervisor to discharge, expel, discriminate, or otherwise retaliate against an individual assisting with an office of fraud and accountability investigation under RCW 74.04.012, unless the individual has willfully disregarded the truth in providing information to the office.
[ 2011 1st sp.s. c 42 s 25; 1992 c 118 s 4; 1985 c 185 s 18; 1957 c 37 s 12. Prior: 1949 c 183 s 7, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 7614-26, part.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—Effective date—2011 1st sp.s. c 42: See notes following RCW 74.08A.260.
Finding—2011 1st sp.s. c 42: See note following RCW 74.04.004.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 199 cases (58 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Allison v. Hous. Auth. of City of Seattle, 821 P.2d 34 (Wash. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Allison v. Hous. Auth. of City of Seattle, 821 P.2d 34 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 10× “The Housing Authority appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals, Division One, alleging that the trial court erred in giving instruction 10 and challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the jury's verdict.”
Currier v. Northland Servs., Inc., 332 P.3d 1006 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “In 2011, Currier commenced suit against NSI for retaliation under the WLAD, RCW 49.60.210 and .030. ¶11 NSI moved for summary judgment, arguing that “the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) simply does not apply to alleged discrimination solely between two independent…”
Lodis v. Corbis Holdings, Inc., 292 P.3d 779 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “180 and retaliation under RCW 49.60.210. Judge Michael Hayden granted Corbis’s motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim.”
Tyner v. State, Dept. of Soc. & Health, 154 P.3d 920 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “C § 1983 [1] for violation of her First Amendment right to free speech [2] and (2) RCW 49.60.210 for terminating her employment in retaliation for comments she made about her supervisor.”
Galbraith v. Tapco Credit Union, 946 P.2d 1242 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 13× “295, to expel Galbraith from the credit union. The trial court entered two separate orders dismissing Galbraith’s claims on summary judgment.”
Hines v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 112 P.3d 522 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Hines’ additional claims were for retaliation under RCW 49.60.210, invasion of privacy, disclosure of health care information in violation of the HCDA, common law breach of confidentiality, negligent or intentional misrepresentation, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,…”
Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 430 P.3d 229 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 2× “Retaliation under WLAD ¶ 13 WLAD proscribes discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, and other protected characteristics.”
Washington Water Power Co. v. Washington State Human Rights Comm'n, 586 P.2d 1149 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 4× “It is made an unfair practice to discriminate against a person opposing an unfair practice (RCW 49.60.210) or to aid a violation (RCW 49.”
Schonauer v. DCR Ent., Inc., 905 P.2d 392 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “The first is RCW 49.60.210. The second is "public policy.”
Herring v. Dept. of Soc. & Health Serv., 914 P.2d 67 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “Under RCW 49.60.210, the employee bears the burden of proving that the employer's action was retaliatory and that such retaliation was the proximate cause of the employee's damages.”
Steven Lodis & Deborah Lodis v. Corbis Holdings, Inc., 192 Wash. App. 30 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “180 and retaliation under RCW 49.60.210. Judge Michael Hayden granted Corbis’s motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim.”
Blinka v. Washington State Bar Ass'n, 36 P.3d 1094 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “First, *1098 Blinka's claim for retaliatory discharge is rooted in RCW 49.60.210 which makes it "an unfair practice for any employer .”
Show all 199 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.210(1) — 106 cases
Currier v. Northland Servs., Inc., 332 P.3d 1006 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “In 2011, Currier commenced suit against NSI for retaliation under the WLAD, RCW 49.60.210 and .030. ¶11 NSI moved for summary judgment, arguing that “the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) simply does not apply to alleged discrimination solely between two independent…”
Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 430 P.3d 229 (Wash. 2018). “Retaliation under WLAD ¶ 13 WLAD proscribes discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, and other protected characteristics.”
Lodis v. Corbis Holdings, Inc., 292 P.3d 779 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “180 and retaliation under RCW 49.60.210. Judge Michael Hayden granted Corbis’s motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim.”
Vasquez v. STATE, DSHS, 974 P.2d 348 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
Becker v. Washington State Univ., 266 P.3d 893 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.210(2) — 7 cases
Woodbury v. City of Seattle, 292 P.3d 134 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Lins v. Child.'s Discovery Centers of Am., Inc., 976 P.2d 168 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
Dannan v. City of Yakima (E.D. Wash. 2025).
Dannan (E.D. Wash. 2026).
John Boespflug, Appellant/cross V Wa State Dept. Of L & I, Respondent/cross (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.210(3) — 4 cases
Carl W. Paddock, V. Port Of Tacoma, 531 P.3d 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
Dannan v. City of Yakima (E.D. Wash. 2025).
Dannan (E.D. Wash. 2026).
Goodell v. Columbia Cnty. Pub. Transp. (E.D. Wash. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.210(l) — 1 case
Jin Zhu v. N. Cent. Educ. Serv. Dist. (Wash. 2017).
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.