Wash. Rev. Code » Title 73 · Chapter 73.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 73.16.010 (2026)

Preference in public employment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 5420.SL) ***
In every public department, and upon all public works of the state, and of any county thereof, soldiers, sailors, guardians, marines and other members of the uniformed services who are veterans of any war of the United States, or of any military campaign for which a campaign ribbon shall have been awarded with a qualifying discharge as defined in RCW 73.04.005, and their widows or widowers, shall be preferred for appointment and employment. Age, loss of limb, or other physical impairment, which does not in fact incapacitate, shall not be deemed to disqualify them, provided they possess the capacity necessary to discharge the duties of the position involved: PROVIDED, That spouses of veterans with a qualifying discharge as defined in RCW 73.04.005 and who have a service connected permanent and total disability shall also be preferred for appointment and employment.
[ 2024 c 146 s 33; 1975 1st ex.s. c 198 s 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 154 s 107; 1951 c 29 s 1; 1943 c 141 s 1; 1919 c 26 s 1; 1915 c 129 s 1; 1895 c 84 s 1; Rem. Supp. 1943 s 10753.]

Notes:

Intent—2024 c 146: See note following RCW 73.04.005.
Severability—1973 1st ex.s. c 154: See note following RCW 2.12.030.
Veterans to receive scoring criteria status in competitive examinations for public employment: RCW 41.04.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1955–2002 · leading case: Gossage v. State, 49 P.3d 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gossage v. State, 49 P.3d 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 34× “Gossage then moved for partial summary judgment, claiming that he had been denied his veteran's preference.”
Gossage v. State, 112 Wash. App. 412 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 34× “The court found it undisputed that Gossage was a veteran as defined by RCW 73.16.010. But the court ruled that because Gossage applied for a competitive job, RCW 41.”
Wilcox v. Hous. Auth. of King Cty., 405 P.2d 723 (Wash. 1965). · cites it 13× “The defendant Housing Authority of the County of King (respondent, hereinafter referred to as the Authority) is a municipal corporation governed by a 5-man Board of Housing Commissioners (hereinafter called the Board) who are appointed for staggered 5-year terms by the King…”
Mitchell v. Bd. of Indus. Ins. Appeals, 109 Wash. App. 88 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Age, loss of limb, or other physical impairment, which does not in fact incapacitate, shall not be deemed to disqualify them, provided they possess the capacity necessary to discharge the duties of the position involved: PROVIDED, That spouses of honorably discharged veterans…”
Mitchell v. Bd. of Indus. Ins. Appeals, 34 P.3d 267 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Age, loss of limb, or other physical impairment, which does not in fact incapacitate, shall not be deemed to disqualify them, provided they possess the capacity necessary to discharge the duties of the position involved: PROVIDED, That spouses of honorably discharged veterans…”
State Ex Rel. Bond v. State, 368 P.2d 676 (Wash. 1962). · cites it 8× “080(2)) statute of limitations? ANSWER: The three-year statute. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION: A veteran's preference in public employment was unknown at common law.”
State Ex Rel. Phillips v. WN. LIQUOR CONTROL BD., 369 P.2d 844 (Wash. 1962). · cites it 5× “This is a mandamus action to enforce the preference in public employment granted to “veterans of any war of the United States” by RCW 73.16.010 1 73.16.015 2 and “of any war between this country and any foreign country” by RCW 43.”
Bond v. State, 425 P.2d 10 (Wash. 1967). “Almost 3 years later, he commenced a mandamus action to compel his restoration to the position he had occupied, contending that he was entitled to a veteran’s preference in public employment (RCW 73.16.010) and had been discharged without cause and replaced by a nonveteran.”
Sorey v. Oldsmobile, 919 P.2d 1276 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “2d 710 , 2 the question presented was whether the three-year or two- *805 year statute of limitations should apply to a statutory veteran’s preference in public employment (RCW 73.16.010). Bond placed the dispute over the applicable statute of limitations, for causes of action…”
State Ex Rel. Bond v. State, 383 P.2d 288 (Wash. 1963). · cites it 4× “At the time of his dismissal, relator was an honorably discharged war veteran entitled to the benefits of RCW 73.16.010* 2 and RCW 73.16.015. 3 March 11, 1957, his position was filled by a person who was not an honorably discharged veteran of any United States war.”
State Ex Rel. Ford v. KING CO., 290 P.2d 465 (Wash. 1955). · cites it 3× “to wit, the proper interpretation and application of the veterans’ preference act (RCW 73.16.010 and 73.16.015) to the facts of this case.”
State Ex Rel. Day v. King Cnty., 312 P.2d 637 (Wash. 1957). · cites it 3× “59 [RCW 73.16.010]. 4 “Each sheriff may appoint as many deputies as he may think proper, for whose official acts he shall be responsible to the amount of their [his] bond, and may revoke such appointments at his pleasure; and persons may also be deputed by any sheriff in writing…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.