Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act

In Washington State, the law requiring employers to disclose wage and salary ranges in job postings is found in RCW 49.58.110. This statute is part of the state’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA). Under this law, employers with 15 or more employees must provide a salary range or wage scale, along with a description of benefits, in any job posting that seeks to fill a position. The law’s goal is to promote pay transparency and help reduce wage disparities, particularly for historically marginalized groups. Noncompliance with the wage disclosure requirements can result in civil penalties, making it essential for Washington employers to ensure that their job advertisements comply with these rules. Private Attorneys can bring civil actions based on violations of RCW 49.58.110. Please call Nolan Lim Law Firm, PS if you have any questions about this law and your rights under it.

Higley v Sportsman’s Warehouse

Higley v. Sportsman’s Warehouse, Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, NO. 24-2-16440-5 KNT. About this Case: In this class action case, Kjersten Higley, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, alleges wage and hour violations by Sportsman’s Warehouse, Inc. The plaintiff claims the company systematically denied non-exempt employees meal and rest breaks, required them to work through these breaks to meet scheduling demands, and failed to properly compensate for overtime work exceeding 40 hours per week. Additionally, employees were required to use personal cell phones for work-related tasks without reimbursement, resulting in unlawful wage deductions. The case seeks recovery of unpaid wages, claiming Sportsman’s Warehouse violated several Washington state labor laws. Higley, a former cashier, asserts the company’s compensation practices willfully underpaid employees, leaving many earning below the state’s minimum wage, and requests class action status for over 40 affected employees. Case Status: This case is Pending in King County Superior Court with a trial date scheduled for July of 2025.

Mannin v Cambridge Management

Plaintiff Donya Mannin, representing herself and other similarly affected employees, accuses Cambridge Management, Inc. of alleged violations of wage and hour laws. The lawsuit alleges that Cambridge Management engaged in wage and hour violations, including the failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay overtime for hours worked beyond 40 per week, and improper deductions from wages. The plaintiff, a former Community Manager, claims that Cambridge’s policies forced employees to work through breaks and failed to compensate them fairly. The class action seeks to represent all hourly-paid or non-exempt employees working for Cambridge in Washington over the past three years. The suit accuses Cambridge of violating various Washington State labor laws, including failing to pay minimum wages, overtime, and business expenses. The class is believed to include at least 40 current and former employees, and the case seeks to recover unpaid wages and damages.

Underwood v Star protection Agency

Underwood v. Star Protection Agency, Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, NO. 24-2-20175-1. About this Case: In the class action case filed in the Superior Court of Washington, plaintiff Dylan Underwood, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, alleges that Star Protection Agency, LLC engaged in wage and hour violations. The lawsuit claims that Star Protection Agency failed to provide legally mandated meal and rest breaks, did not compensate employees for using personal vehicles and cell phones for work, and did not pay overtime for hours worked beyond 40 hours per week. These unlawful policies allegedly affected non-exempt employees, such as security officers, across Washington State. The plaintiff seeks damages for unpaid wages and violations of Washington State labor laws. Case Status: This case is Pending in King County Superior Court with a trial date scheduled for  September of 2025.

Martinez v Comprehensive Healthcare

In a class action lawsuit filed in Yakima County Superior Court, Ramiro Martinez, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, alleges that Comprehensive Health Care, a Washington-based non-profit, engaged in widespread wage and hour violations. The lawsuit claims that the organization systematically denied non-exempt employees, including case managers, nursing assistants, and other healthcare staff, required meal and rest breaks, forcing them to work through breaks to meet job demands. Additionally, the suit alleges that employees were not properly compensated for overtime, received inaccurate pay stubs, and were not paid the state-mandated minimum wage. The case seeks compensation for unpaid wages, penalties for missed breaks, and attorney’s fees, citing violations of Washington State labor laws. The suit contends that these practices were part of a willful and ongoing scheme that affected at least 40 current and former employees.

Camby v Janicki Industries

In a class action lawsuit filed in Skagit County Superior Court, Daniel Camby, a former mechanic at Janicki Industries, along with other non-exempt employees, accuses the company of wage and hour violations. The plaintiffs claim Janicki Industries, which operates in aerospace, defense, and other industries, systematically denied meal and rest breaks, failed to pay overtime, and engaged in unlawful pay practices. The class action seeks damages for unpaid wages, meal and rest break violations, and penalties under Washington labor laws. The plaintiffs aim to recover compensation for these violations and prevent further unlawful practices by Janicki Industries.

Howe v The Truss Company

In this class action lawsuit, plaintiff Tamerra Howe, on behalf of all similarly situated employees, alleges that The Truss Company, LLC, a Washington-based manufacturer of wood trusses, engaged in widespread wage and hour violations. The lawsuit claims that the company failed to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks, required employees to use personal vehicles for work without compensation, and refused to pay overtime despite employees working more than 40 hours per week. These practices allegedly resulted in wages falling below the state minimum wage. The suit seeks damages for unpaid wages, overtime, and reimbursement for business expenses in violation of Washington state labor laws. The class consists of current and former hourly or non-exempt employees dating back three years from the filing of the complaint.

Dudley v Honor Senior Care

Dudley v. Honor Senior Care, Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, NO. 24-2-08662-5 SEA. About this Case: In this class action lawsuit, plaintiff Ariana Dudley, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, accuses Honor Senior Care, doing business as Amada Senior Care, of multiple wage and hour violations. Honor Senior Care provides home care services in King, Pierce, and Cowlitz counties, employing non-exempt workers like Dudley. The complaint alleges that Honor Senior Care failed to provide required meal and rest breaks, underpaid workers for travel time at rates below the state minimum wage, and unlawfully deducted wages by requiring employees to use personal vehicles and cell phones for work without adequate reimbursement. Additionally, Honor Senior Care allegedly refused to pay overtime wages and issued inaccurate paystubs. The class seeks compensation for unpaid wages and damages under Washington state labor laws, with claims affecting at least 40 current and former employees. Case Status: This case is Pending in King County Superior Court with a trial date scheduled for  April of 2025.

Wage Theft in Seattle’s Restaurant Industry: Know Your Rights

Seattle’s thriving restaurant industry provides jobs to many, but wage theft—when employers fail to pay workers what they’re owed—remains a significant issue. Despite Seattle’s strict labor laws, wage theft continues to impact restaurant workers. Here’s what restaurant employees need to know about wage theft and their legal rights. What Is Wage Theft? Wage theft occurs when employers don’t pay employees the full wages they’re entitled to. Common forms include: Wage Theft in Seattle Restaurants Restaurant workers are often vulnerable to wage theft for several reasons: Seattle’s Labor Laws and Penalties Seattle’s labor laws protect workers from wage theft and impose strict penalties for violations: Steps to Take if You’re a Victim of Wage Theft If you believe you’ve been subjected to wage theft: Conclusion Wage theft affects many restaurant workers, but Seattle’s strong labor protections give you the right to pursue justice. If your employer has underpaid you or denied overtime, you can file a complaint with the OLS and seek legal advice to hold them accountable.

LAYOFFS AND PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION

Pregnancy discrimination is a serious issue that affects many women in the workforce. Despite laws such as the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace, many women still face discrimination and mistreatment during their pregnancies. One form of discrimination that pregnant women may face is layoffs.Layoffs are a common occurrence in today’s workforce, and pregnant women are not immune to them. However, when a pregnant woman is laid off, it can be difficult to determine whether the layoff was due to her pregnancy or due to other factors such as company downsizing.If a pregnant woman is laid off and believes that her pregnancy was the reason for the layoff, she may have a case for pregnancy discrimination. It is important for pregnant women to be aware of their rights and to speak up if they believe they have been discriminated against.Courts will examine evidence to determine if a layoff was motivated by pregnancy. This can include circumstantial evidence such as a termination coinciding with maternity leave, managers inquiring about leave duration before a layoff, transferring job duties prior to leave, exclusion from trainings, and discussions about pregnancy during layoff decisions. See Moua v. IBM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48318.If any of these facts present themselves for you or a coworker, they are worth discussing with potential legal counsel.

Call Now Button