Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that the State was not generally an employer under Washington’s Industrial Welfare Act for purposes of employees’ meal and rest period claims, at least as of 1988. The court affirmed summary judgment for the State on that ground and declined to address whether the legislature’s 2003 amendment to the Act applied retroactively.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the State qualified as an employer under the Industrial Welfare Act before 2003.
- Whether the legislature's 2003 amendment clarifying the Act's application to public employers could apply retroactively.
Holdings
- The Industrial Welfare Act did not generally apply to the State at least as of 1988; only the provisions that the legislature expressly made applicable to public employers applied to the State. Accordingly, the State was not subject to the Act for purposes of the employees' meal- and rest-period claims.
- The court did not decide whether the 2003 amendment applied retroactively because its conclusion that the State was not generally an employer under the Act at least as of 1988 independently disposed of the controversy.
Key quotations
“Giving proper effect to the language employed by the legislature in 1988 and 1998, it is clear that at least as of 1988 only those sections of the IWA specified by the legislature applied to the State.” (152 Wash. 2d at 646)
“We hold, therefore, that the IWA did not apply to the State for the purposes underlying Employees’ claims.” (152 Wash. 2d at 646)
“Because we hold that the State was not generally considered an employer under the IWA at least as of 1988, we do not address the retroactivity of the 2003 amendment.” (152 Wash. 2d at 646)
Factual background
The appellants were current and former employees of the Washington Department of Corrections and Department of Social and Health Services. They alleged that the State required them to work straight eight-hour shifts without the meal and rest periods required by the Industrial Welfare Act and WAC 296-126-092, and sought back wages under RCW 49.52.070. The State admitted that the employees worked eight-hour shifts but denied that they worked through meal and rest periods.
Procedural history
Employees filed a class complaint in Pierce County Superior Court in January 2002, alleging that the State required them to work through meal and rest periods in violation of the Industrial Welfare Act and related regulations. The trial court initially granted employees partial summary judgment, ruling that the State was an employer under the Act. After the legislature enacted a 2003 amendment addressing the Act's application to public employers, the trial court granted the State summary judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice, concluding that the amendment applied retroactively. The Washington Supreme Court granted direct review and affirmed on the alternative ground that the Act did not generally apply to the State at least as early as 1988.