Wash. Rev. Code » Title 50A · Chapter 50A.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 50A.40.010 (2026)

Employers

✓ 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 unlawful for any employer to:
(a) Interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any valid right provided under this title; or
(b) Discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee for opposing any practice made unlawful by this title.
(2) It is unlawful for any person to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has:
(a) Filed any complaint, or has instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding, under or related to this title;
(b) Given, or is about to give, any information in connection with any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under this title; or
(c) Testified, or is about to testify, in any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under this title.
(3) As provided in RCW 50A.40.020 and 50A.40.030, the department will investigate allegations of unlawful acts and determine damages, as necessary.
[ 2020 c 125 s 11; 2019 c 13 s 15; 2017 3rd sp.s. c 5 s 72. Formerly RCW 50A.04.085.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2022–2025 · leading case: Mooney v. Roller Bearing Co. of Am. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mooney v. Roller Bearing Co. of Am. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 3× “030(3)(b) (“Any 4 employer who violates RCW 50A.40.010,” which prohibits interfering with rights under the 5 statute, “is also liable for interest accrued on the damages”).”
City Of Burien, V. Carol Allread (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “RCW 50A.40.010(2). Here, Allread contends that she was entitled to judgment as a matter of 22 No.”
Mooney v. Roller Bearing Co. of Am. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 2× “Wash. Rev. Code § 50A.40.010(1). Because the 23 WPFMLA “mirrors its federal counterpart,” courts “construe its provisions in a manner consistent 24 with similar provisions of the FMLA.”
Levy (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “Levy filed a complaint against Google in King County 13 Superior Court seeking damages and bringing claims for (1) retaliation under 14 Washington’s Silenced No More Act (“SNMA”), RCW 49.44.211(3); (2) wrongful 15 termination in violation of public policy; and (3) interference…”
Smith v. Clover Park Sch. Dist. No 400 (W.D. Wash. 2023). “220(c); RCW 50A.40.010; 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (a)(2); 29 C.”
Spokoiny v. Univ. of Washington Med. Ctr. (W.D. Wash. 2024). “at 22-23 (citing RCW 50A.40.010)), but Ms. Spokoiny did not assert a claim for PFMLA interference (see Am.”
Huerta Morales v. Walt's Wholesale Meats Inc. (W.D. Wash. 2024). “” RCW 50A.40.010. Under the 24 1 analogous federal FMLA, “employer actions that deter employees’ participation in protected 2 activities constitute ‘interference’ or ‘restraint’ with the employees’ exercise of their rights.”
Shumlich v. US Bank NA (W.D. Wash. 2025). “040(2) (“Any private action for an alleged 13 violation of RCW 50A.40.010 must be commenced within three years of the date of the alleged 14 violation”) (emphasis added).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50A.40.010(1) — 1 case
Mooney v. Roller Bearing Co. of Am. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2022). “Wash. Rev. Code § 50A.40.010(1). Because the 23 WPFMLA “mirrors its federal counterpart,” courts “construe its provisions in a manner consistent 24 with similar provisions of the FMLA.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50A.40.010(1)(a) — 1 case
Mooney v. Roller Bearing Co. of Am. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). “030(3)(b) (“Any 4 employer who violates RCW 50A.40.010,” which prohibits interfering with rights under the 5 statute, “is also liable for interest accrued on the damages”).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50A.40.010(1)(b) — 1 case
Levy (W.D. Wash. 2025). “Levy filed a complaint against Google in King County 13 Superior Court seeking damages and bringing claims for (1) retaliation under 14 Washington’s Silenced No More Act (“SNMA”), RCW 49.44.211(3); (2) wrongful 15 termination in violation of public policy; and (3) interference…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50A.40.010(2) — 1 case
City Of Burien, V. Carol Allread (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 50A.40.010(2). Here, Allread contends that she was entitled to judgment as a matter of 22 No.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50A.40.010(2)(b) — 1 case
City Of Burien, V. Carol Allread (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 50A.40.010(2). Here, Allread contends that she was entitled to judgment as a matter of 22 No.”
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.