Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.070 (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) "Employer" means any person, body of persons, corporate or otherwise, and the legal representatives of a deceased employer, all while engaged in this state in any work covered by the provisions of this title, by way of trade or business, or who contracts with one or more workers, the essence of which is the personal labor of such worker or workers. Or as an exception to the definition of employer, persons or entities are not employers when they contract or agree to remunerate the services performed by an individual who meets the tests set forth in RCW 51.08.195 (1) through (6) or the separate tests set forth in RCW 51.08.181 for work performed that requires registration under chapter 18.27 RCW or licensing under chapter 18.106 or 19.28 RCW.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, and for purposes of this title only, a transportation network company, as defined in RCW 49.46.300, shall have the same rights and obligations of an "employer" under this title with respect to a driver, as defined in RCW 49.46.300, only while the driver is engaged in passenger platform time and dispatch platform time.
[ 2023 c 88 s 7; 2022 c 281 s 9; 2008 c 102 s 2; 1991 c 246 s 2; 1981 c 128 s 1; 1977 ex.s. c 350 s 12; 1971 ex.s. c 289 s 1; 1961 c 23 s 51.08.070. Prior: 1957 c 70 s 9; prior: (i) 1939 c 41 s 2, part; 1929 c 132 s 1, part; 1927 c 310 s 2, part; 1921 c 182 s 2, part; 1919 c 131 s 2, part; 1917 c 120 s 1, part; 1911 c 74 s 3, part; RRS s 7675, part. (ii) 1949 c 219 s 1, part; 1947 c 246 s 1, part; 1929 c 132 s 2, part; 1927 c 310 s 4, part; 1923 c 136 s 2, part; 1919 c 131 s 4, part; 1917 c 28 s 1, part; 1913 c 148 s 1, part; 1911 c 74 s 5, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 7679, part.]

Notes:

Effective dates—2022 c 281 ss 8-13, 17, and 28: See note following RCW 51.12.020.
Conflict with federal requirements—2008 c 102: "If any part of this act is found to be in conflict with federal requirements which are a prescribed condition to the allocation of federal funds to the state or the eligibility of employers in this state for federal unemployment tax credits, the conflicting part of this act is hereby declared to be inoperative solely to the extent of the conflict, and such finding or determination may not affect the operation of the remainder of this act. The rules under this act shall meet federal requirements which are a necessary condition to the receipt of federal funds by the state or the granting of federal unemployment tax credits to employers in this state." [ 2008 c 102 s 6.]
Severability—2008 c 102: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 2008 c 102 s 7.]
Effective date—Conflict with federal requirements—1991 c 246: See notes following RCW 51.08.195.
Effective dates—Severability—1971 ex.s. c 289: See RCW 51.98.060 and 51.98.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1952–2023 · leading case: Jepson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 573 P.2d 10 (Wash. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jepson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 573 P.2d 10 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 11× “Next, an "employer" is defined by RCW 51.08.070, as "any person, body of persons, corporate or otherwise .”
Malang v. Dep't of L&i, 162 P.3d 450 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “RCW 51.08.070 states that an "employer" includes any person or entity "who contracts with one or more workers, the essence of which is the personal labor of such worker or workers.”
Malang v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 139 Wash. App. 677 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “RCW 51.08.070 states that an “employer” includes any person or entity “who contracts with one or more workers, the essence of which is the personal labor of such worker or workers.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Lyons Enter., Inc., 374 P.3d 1097 (Wash. 2016). “195 provides: As an exception to the definition of “employer” under RCW 51.08.070 and the definition of “worker” under RCW 51.”
Hildahl v. Bringolf, 101 Wash. App. 634 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “It determined that Daniel, not Bringolf, was Hildahl’s employer “within the meaning of RCW 51.08.070.” 3 Nonetheless, the Board required Bringolf to pay the outstanding $1,168 L&I premium, plus a $35,590 penalty, under RCW 51.”
Hildahl v. Bringolf, 5 P.3d 38 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “It determined that Daniel, not Bringolf, was Hildahl's employer "within the meaning of RCW 51.08.070." [3] Nonetheless, the Board required Bringolf to pay the outstanding $1,168 L & I premium, plus a $35,590 penalty, under RCW 51.”
White v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 294 P.2d 650 (Wash. 1956). · cites it 4× “RCW 51.08.070]). The exact wording of the pertinent portion of that section of the act is as follows: "Except when otherwise expressly stated, employer means any person, body of persons, corporate or otherwise, and the legal personal representatives of a deceased employer, all…”
Warnek v. ABB Combustion Eng'g Servs., Inc., 972 P.2d 453 (Wash. 1999). “541 (1976) RCW 51.08.070 (“ ‘Employer’ means any person, body of persons, corporate or otherwise, and the legal representatives of a deceased employer, all while engaged in this state in any work covered by the provisions of this title [Title 51, Industrial Insurance Act].”
Marsland v. Bullitt Co., 428 P.2d 586 (Wash. 1967). · cites it 3× “The plaintiffs first contend the trial court erred in holding that the defendant, Bullitt Company, was the plaintiffs’ “employer” within the meaning of RCW 51.08.070 and had an employer’s immunity from suit.”
Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 131 Wash. 2d 439 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 51.08.070(1). General contractors are responsible for paying the premiums of employees of subcontractors, except for certain exclusions, even though the general contractor is not their common-law employer.”
Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 932 P.2d 628 (Wash. 1997). “General contractors are responsible for paying the premiums of employees of subcontractors, except for certain exclusions, even though the general contractor is not their common law employer. RCW 51.12.070.”
Dana's Housekeeping, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 886 P.2d 1147 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “” RCW 51.08.070. 2 Because we hold the housecleaners are working under an independent contract, the essence of which is personal labor for Dana’s, we do not address whether the housecleaners are Dana’s employees.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.070(1) — 4 cases
Malang v. Dep't of L&i, 162 P.3d 450 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 51.08.070 states that an "employer" includes any person or entity "who contracts with one or more workers, the essence of which is the personal labor of such worker or workers.”
Malang v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 139 Wash. App. 677 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 51.08.070 states that an “employer” includes any person or entity “who contracts with one or more workers, the essence of which is the personal labor of such worker or workers.”
Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 131 Wash. 2d 439 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 51.08.070(1). General contractors are responsible for paying the premiums of employees of subcontractors, except for certain exclusions, even though the general contractor is not their common-law employer.”
Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 932 P.2d 628 (Wash. 1997). “General contractors are responsible for paying the premiums of employees of subcontractors, except for certain exclusions, even though the general contractor is not their common law employer. RCW 51.12.070.”
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.