Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.195 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
As an exception to the definition of "employer" under RCW 51.08.070 and the definition of "worker" under RCW 51.08.180, services performed by an individual for remuneration shall not constitute employment subject to this title if it is shown that:
(1) The individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of the service, both under the contract of service and in fact; and
(2) The service is either outside the usual course of business for which the service is performed, or the service is performed outside all of the places of business of the enterprise for which the service is performed, or the individual is responsible, both under the contract and in fact, for the costs of the principal place of business from which the service is performed; and
(3) The individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business, of the same nature as that involved in the contract of service, or the individual has a principal place of business for the business the individual is conducting that is eligible for a business deduction for federal income tax purposes; and
(4) On the effective date of the contract of service, the individual is responsible for filing at the next applicable filing period, both under the contract of service and in fact, a schedule of expenses with the internal revenue service for the type of business the individual is conducting; and
(5) On the effective date of the contract of service, or within a reasonable period after the effective date of the contract, the individual has established an account with the department of revenue, and other state agencies as required by the particular case, for the business the individual is conducting for the payment of all state taxes normally paid by employers and businesses and has registered for and received a unified business identifier number from the state of Washington; and
(6) On the effective date of the contract of service, the individual is maintaining a separate set of books or records that reflect all items of income and expenses of the business which the individual is conducting.
Notes:
Conflict with federal requirements—Severability—2008 c 102: See notes following RCW 51.08.070.
Effective date—1991 c 246: "This act shall take effect January 1, 1992." [ 1991 c 246 s 10.]
Conflict with federal requirements—1991 c 246: "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 shall 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." [ 1991 c 246 s 9.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases, 1994–2019 · leading case: Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Lyons Enter., Inc., 374 P.3d 1097 (Wash. 2016).
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Lyons Enter., Inc., 374 P.3d 1097 (Wash. 2016). “2d 650 (1956) or under RCW 51.08.195. Again, the answer to the exemption question has changed at nearly every level of review.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Lyons Enter., Inc., 347 P.3d 464 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “But the remaining franchisees were covered workers and did not qualify for the exception described in RCW 51.08.195. L&I reached this conclusion because these franchisees were not “free from direction and control.”
Henry Indus., Inc. v. Dep't Of Labor & Indus., 381 P.3d 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “We hold that HII has failed in its burden to establish that the exception of RCW 51.08.195 applies to this case. ¶88 RCW 51.”
Malang v. Dep't of L&i, 162 P.3d 450 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “" RCW 51.08.195 creates an exception to the rule that independent contractors for personal labor are "workers": [S]ervices performed by an individual for remuneration shall not constitute employment subject to this title if it is shown that: (1) The individual has been and will…”
Malang v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 139 Wash. App. 677 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “” RCW 51.08.195 creates an exception to the rule that independent contractors for personal labor are “workers”: *689 [Sjervices performed by an individual for remuneration shall not constitute employment subject to this title if it is shown that: (1) The individual has been and…”
Jackson v. Harvey, 864 P.2d 975 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “Or as a separate alternative, 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 subsections (1) through (6) of RCW 51.08.195. (Italics ours.) The definition of "worker" found…”
Daniels v. Seattle Seahawks, 968 P.2d 883 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “Auld’s work for the Seahawks constitutes employment under the IIA’s *578 alternative exception to the Act’s “worker” definition, RCW 51.08.195; (2) Dr. Auld is not an employee but an independent contractor; and (3) either the dual capacity or dual persona doctrines permit his…”
Dana's Housekeeping, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 886 P.2d 1147 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “rker” to include both employees and independent contractors (the latter with one exception): "Worker” means every person in this state who is engaged in the employment of an employer under this title, whether by way of manual labor or otherwise in the course of his or her…”
Doty v. Town of South Prairie, 155 Wash. 2d 527 (Wash. 2005). “” RCW 51.08.195. Additionally, the IIA instructs that “[w]henever .”
R & G Probst v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 88 P.3d 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “[3] RCW 51.08.195 allows an industrial insurance premium exemption for independent contractors who meet six statutory requirements.”
Doty v. Town of South Prairie, 120 P.3d 941 (Wash. 2005). “" RCW 51.08.195. Additionally, the IIA instructs that "[w]henever.”
R&G Probst v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 121 Wash. App. 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 51.08.195 allows an industrial insurance premium exemption for independent contractors who meet six statutory requirements.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.195(1) — 6 cases
Henry Indus., Inc. v. Dep't Of Labor & Indus., 381 P.3d 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “We hold that HII has failed in its burden to establish that the exception of RCW 51.08.195 applies to this case. ¶88 RCW 51.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Lyons Enter., Inc., 374 P.3d 1097 (Wash. 2016). “2d 650 (1956) or under RCW 51.08.195. Again, the answer to the exemption question has changed at nearly every level of review.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Lyons Enter., Inc., 347 P.3d 464 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “But the remaining franchisees were covered workers and did not qualify for the exception described in RCW 51.08.195. L&I reached this conclusion because these franchisees were not “free from direction and control.”
Jackson v. Harvey, 864 P.2d 975 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “Or as a separate alternative, 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 subsections (1) through (6) of RCW 51.08.195. (Italics ours.) The definition of "worker" found…”
Henry Indus., Inc. v. Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.195(3) — 3 cases
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Lyons Enter., Inc., 374 P.3d 1097 (Wash. 2016). “2d 650 (1956) or under RCW 51.08.195. Again, the answer to the exemption question has changed at nearly every level of review.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Lyons Enter., Inc., 347 P.3d 464 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “But the remaining franchisees were covered workers and did not qualify for the exception described in RCW 51.08.195. L&I reached this conclusion because these franchisees were not “free from direction and control.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Lyons Enters., Inc. (Wash. 2016).
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.