Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 73.16.033 (2026)

Reemployment of returned veterans

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person who is a resident of this state or is employed within this state, and who voluntarily or upon order from competent authority, vacates a position of employment for service in the uniformed services, shall, provided he or she meets the requirements of RCW 73.16.035, be reemployed forthwith: PROVIDED, That the employer need not reemploy such person if circumstances have so changed such that reemployment would be impossible or unreasonable due to a change in the employer's circumstances, or would impose an undue hardship on the employer: PROVIDED FURTHER, That this section shall not apply to a temporary position.
If such person is still qualified to perform the duties of his or her former position, he or she shall be restored to that position or to a position of like seniority, status and pay. If he or she is not so qualified as a result of disability sustained during his or her service in the uniformed services, but is nevertheless qualified to perform the duties of another position, under the control of the same employer, he or she shall be reemployed in such other position: PROVIDED, That such position shall provide him or her with like seniority, status, and pay, or the nearest approximation thereto consistent with the circumstances of the case.
[ 2001 c 133 s 5; 1953 c 212 s 2.]

Notes:

Effective date2001 c 133: See note following RCW 73.16.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: Nichols v. Snohomish Cnty., 746 P.2d 1208 (Wash. 1987).
Nichols v. Snohomish Cnty., 746 P.2d 1208 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 8× “RCW 73.16.033, Washington's version of the federal Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act ( 38 U.”
Robinson v. Hamed, 813 P.2d 171 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “This was denied preclusive effect as to Nichols's right to reemployment under RCW 73.16.033 because no facts found by the commission were at issue determining Nichols's reemployment rights.”
Nichols v. Snohomish Cnty., 736 P.2d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “Is the federal "rule of reason" applicable to RCW 73.16.033, barring Nichols from seeking reemployment after an absence of more than 90 days? 3.”
Kinnune v. State of Washington (E.D. Wash. 2024). “are inextricably connected to 12 [Mr.] Kinnune’s ‘military status,’ are therefore protected under RCW 49.”
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.