Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.48.025 (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) No employer may discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed or communicated to the employer an intent to file a claim for compensation or exercises any rights provided under this title. However, nothing in this section prevents an employer from taking any action against a worker for other reasons including, but not limited to, the worker's failure to observe health or safety standards adopted by the employer, or the frequency or nature of the worker's job-related accidents.

(2) Any employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by an employer in violation of this section may file a complaint with the director alleging discrimination within ninety days of the date of the alleged violation. Upon receipt of such complaint, the director shall cause an investigation to be made as the director deems appropriate. Within ninety days of the receipt of a complaint filed under this section, the director shall notify the complainant of his or her determination. If upon such investigation, it is determined that this section has been violated, the director shall bring an action in the superior court of the county in which the violation is alleged to have occurred.

(3) If the director determines that this section has not been violated, the employee may institute the action on his or her own behalf.

(4) In any action brought under this section, the superior court shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to restrain violations of subsection (1) of this section and to order all appropriate relief including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee with back pay.

[ 1985 c 347 s 8.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 50 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1991–2022 · leading case: Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 821 P.2d 18 (Wash. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 821 P.2d 18 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 38× “Each plaintiff filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, and all contend they were discharged in violation of public policy established by RCW 51.48.025, which prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against employees who file or communicate to the…”

Warnek v. ABB Combustion Eng'g Servs., Inc., 972 P.2d 453 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 33× “for summary judgment in the United States District Court asserting that “(1) Plaintiffs had no right to be hired apart from any right granted in the collective bargaining agreement, which could not form the basis of their state law claim because of federal preemption; and (2)…”

Robel v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wash. 2d 35 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 5× “On February 13, 1998, Robel filed suit against Fred Meyer stating claims for disability discrimination (RCW 49.”

Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 98 P.3d 827 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “3d 611 (citing RCW 51.48.025(1)). Kirby argues that Robel created a common law tort for adverse employment action in violation of public policy and derives elements from those the Robel court used in applying a particular antidiscrimination statute (RCW 51.”

Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wash. App. 454 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “2d at 48 -49 (citing RCW 51.48.025(1)). Kirby argues that Robel created a common law tort for adverse employment action in violation of public policy and derives elements from those the Robel court used in applying a particular antidiscrimination statute (RCW 51.”

Robel v. Roundup Corp., 59 P.3d 611 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 5× “On February 13, 1998, Robel filed suit against Fred Meyer, stating claims for disability discrimination (RCW 49.”

Cudney v. Alsco, Inc., 259 P.3d 244 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 3× “It is true that in Wilmot we held that a statute (RCW 51.48.025) similar to RCW 49.17.160 was not the mandatory and exclusive remedy for an employee who was allegedly terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim.”

McClarty v. Totem Elec., 137 P.3d 844 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “190, retaliatory practices in violation of RCW 51.48.025, wrongful termination, and breach of contract.”

Cudney v. ALSCO, Inc., 172 Wash. 2d 524 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 3× “It is true that in Wilmot we held that a statute (RCW 51.48.025) similar to RCW 49.17.160 was not the mandatory and exclusive remedy for an employee who was allegedly terminated for filing a workers’ compensation claim.”

McClarty v. Totem Elec., 157 Wash. 2d 214 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “190, retaliatory practices in violation of RCW 51.48.025, wrongful termination, and breach of contract.”

Trosper v. Bag 'N Save, 734 N.W.2d 704 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 2× “21, § 710 (2003); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 51.48.025 (1) (West 2002).”

Allison v. Hous. Auth. of City of Seattle, 821 P.2d 34 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 2× “First, in Wilmot this court noted the public policy expressed in RCW 51.48.025, prohibiting retaliatory discharge for filing a compensation claim.”

Show all 50 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.48.025(1) — 17 cases

Robel v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wash. 2d 35 (Wash. 2002). “On February 13, 1998, Robel filed suit against Fred Meyer stating claims for disability discrimination (RCW 49.”

Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 98 P.3d 827 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “3d 611 (citing RCW 51.48.025(1)). Kirby argues that Robel created a common law tort for adverse employment action in violation of public policy and derives elements from those the Robel court used in applying a particular antidiscrimination statute (RCW 51.”

Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wash. App. 454 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “2d at 48 -49 (citing RCW 51.48.025(1)). Kirby argues that Robel created a common law tort for adverse employment action in violation of public policy and derives elements from those the Robel court used in applying a particular antidiscrimination statute (RCW 51.”

Robel v. Roundup Corp., 59 P.3d 611 (Wash. 2002). “On February 13, 1998, Robel filed suit against Fred Meyer, stating claims for disability discrimination (RCW 49.”

Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 430 P.3d 229 (Wash. 2018).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.48.025(2) — 9 cases

Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 821 P.2d 18 (Wash. 1991). “Each plaintiff filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, and all contend they were discharged in violation of public policy established by RCW 51.48.025, which prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against employees who file or communicate to the…”

Warnek v. ABB Combustion Eng'g Servs., Inc., 972 P.2d 453 (Wash. 1999). “for summary judgment in the United States District Court asserting that “(1) Plaintiffs had no right to be hired apart from any right granted in the collective bargaining agreement, which could not form the basis of their state law claim because of federal preemption; and (2)…”

Robel v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wash. 2d 35 (Wash. 2002). “On February 13, 1998, Robel filed suit against Fred Meyer stating claims for disability discrimination (RCW 49.”

Wilson v. City of Monroe, 943 P.2d 1134 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

Moran v. Washington Fruit & Produce, 804 P.2d 1287 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.48.025(3) — 5 cases

Anica v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 84 P.3d 1231 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

Warnek v. Abb Ce Servs., Inc., 972 P.2d 453 (Wash. 1999).

Enriqueta Sanchez v. McDougall & Sons, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.48.025(4) — 4 cases

Wilson v. City of Monroe, 943 P.2d 1134 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 332 P.3d 1085 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

Gregg Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., d/b/a (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

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.