Washington
Washington Final Paycheck Laws: No Acceleration, Real Penalties
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 13, 2026). · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Washington sits at the opposite extreme from states like California: final wages are due at the end of the employer's established pay period, whether you were fired or you quit, under RCW 49.48.010(2). There is no separation-triggered acceleration at all.
Information last verified on 2026-08-12. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
When Is Your Final Paycheck Due in Washington?
RCW 49.48.010(2) sets one rule for both separation types: whether you're discharged or you quit, your final wages are due at the end of the employer's established pay period, exactly the same schedule as if you'd kept working.
"When any employee shall cease to work for an employer, whether by discharge or by voluntary withdrawal, the wages due him or her on account of his or her employment shall be paid to him or her at the end of the established pay period."
That makes Washington the clearest opposite-extreme comparison to states with immediate or same-day rules: there is no accelerated number to look for here at all.
Watch out: Multiple attorney-marketing sites frame Washington as having a hard "final paycheck within X days" rule. It doesn't. The actual rule is simply "end of the established pay period," with no separate acceleration clock.
Penalties and Remedies for Unpaid Final Wages in Washington
Washington doesn't have a dedicated "waiting time penalty" statute the way California does, but that doesn't mean there's no consequence. Several independent remedies apply, and more than one can be in play at the same time.
Civil double damages (RCW 49.52.070). For a WILLFUL violation, a court can award the aggrieved employee twice the amount of wages unlawfully withheld, as exemplary damages, plus costs of suit and a reasonable attorney's fee. This benefit is unavailable to an employee who "knowingly submitted" to the violation.
"Any employer... who shall violate any of the provisions of RCW 49.52.050 (1) and (2) shall be liable in a civil action by the aggrieved employee... to judgment for twice the amount of the wages unlawfully rebated or withheld by way of exemplary damages, together with costs of suit and a reasonable sum for attorney's fees."
Mandatory attorney's fees (RCW 49.48.030). This is the remedy most readers can actually use, and it is not discretionary. If you win a judgment for wages or salary owed, the court must assess reasonable attorney's fees against the employer.
"In any action in which any person is successful in recovering judgment for wages or salary owed to him or her, reasonable attorney's fees, in an amount to be determined by the court, shall be assessed against said employer or former employer: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this section shall not apply if the amount of recovery is less than or equal to the amount admitted by the employer to be owing for said wages or salary."
The one carve-out is the proviso: if you recover no more than what the employer already admitted it owed, the fee award does not apply. Since a judgment above the admitted amount shifts the fee to the employer, have a Washington employment lawyer look at even a modest unpaid-wage claim in a free case evaluation (attorney advertising).
Criminal misdemeanor (RCW 49.48.020). A violation of RCW 49.48.010, which covers both the end-of-pay-period final wage rule and the limits on deductions, is a misdemeanor. Charging is a prosecutor's decision, not yours, so treat this as background pressure on an employer rather than a remedy you can pursue directly.
Administrative civil penalty (RCW 49.48.083). Washington's Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) can assess a civil penalty, but only if it determines the violation was willful. That element is easy to miss and it does real work: an employer's ordinary payroll error or good-faith dispute over what is owed does not trigger this penalty.
"If the department determines that the violation of the wage payment requirement was a willful violation, the department also may order the employer to pay the department a civil penalty as specified in (a) of this subsection."
Separately from the penalty, when L&I issues a citation and notice of assessment it may order the employer to pay all wages owed plus interest of 1% per month, calculated from the first date wages were owed. That interest attaches to your wages; the civil penalty is paid to the department, not to you.
The penalty amounts are currently in flux. RCW 49.48.083 was amended three times during the 2026 legislative session without reference to one another, and the code reviser flags the conflict on the face of the statute. Two of the three versions (2026 c 77 and 2026 c 176) keep the familiar figures: a floor of the greater of $1,000 or 10% of total unpaid wages, with a $20,000 maximum, and a mandatory waiver when a non-repeat violator pays all wages and interest within 10 business days of the citation. The third version (2026 c 53) raises the floor to $1,500, strikes the $20,000 maximum entirely in favor of an inflation adjustment every three years starting in 2030, makes the waiver discretionary ("may waive" rather than "shall waive") and conditions it on the employer also not having resolved a wage complaint more than once in the preceding 12 months or three times in the preceding 24 months. RCW 1.12.025 supplies the rule of construction for sections amended more than once in a session. Until that is sorted out, check the current text on the legislature's site before relying on any specific number.
Does Washington Require PTO or Vacation Payout?
No, not for private-sector employees generally. L&I's own guidance groups severance, personal holidays and vacation time together as voluntary benefits that its wage-complaint process does not enforce; a dispute over a policy-promised payout is instead directed to a private attorney or small claims court.
"Severance, personal holidays, and vacation time are voluntary benefits. Employers can choose to pay out these benefits on a final paycheck. If you believe you are owed any of these agreed-upon benefits, you can contact an attorney or file in small claims court."
Correcting a circulating case citation: A case sometimes cited online as authority that earned vacation automatically becomes a protected wage once a policy promises it is Flower v. T.R.A. Industries, sometimes also styled Flower v. Huntwood Industries. These are not two different cases, a real one and a fabricated one; they are the same, single, real 2005 Washington Court of Appeals opinion. T.R.A. Industries, Inc. is the case's actual corporate defendant, doing business as ("d/b/a") Huntwood Industries, Inc., so both names refer to the identical case. What the case does NOT do is establish a vacation-pay-as-wages rule: it concerns a $10,000 signing-bonus dispute under RCW 49.48.030 and 49.52.070, not vacation pay or PTO. So while the case name checks out, it does not support the vacation-pay doctrine it is sometimes cited for. No verified Washington appellate opinion establishing that earned vacation is automatically a protected wage was found.
Deductions From Your Final Paycheck in Washington
An employer may withhold or deduct from wages, including final wages, only when required by law, specifically agreed to in advance by both employer and employee, or for medical, surgical, or hospital care that's properly recorded.
"It shall be unlawful for any employer to withhold or divert any portion of an employee's wages unless the deduction is: (a) Required by state or federal law; or (b) Except as prohibited under RCW 49.48.160, specifically agreed upon orally or in writing by the employee and employer; or (c) For medical, surgical, or hospital care or service, pursuant to any rule or regulation: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the deduction is openly, clearly, and in due course recorded in the employer's books and records."
Filing a Wage Complaint With L&I
File a written wage complaint with Washington's Department of Labor & Industries. L&I must issue either a citation and notice of assessment, or a determination of compliance, no later than 60 days after accepting the complaint.
That 60-day figure is not an absolute deadline. The statute lets L&I extend it by giving both you and the employer advance written notice setting out good cause for the extension and how long it will last. Acceptance itself is not automatic either: two of the three 2026 versions of RCW 49.48.083 change L&I's duty from "shall investigate" to "may investigate," and require the department instead to publish a written process prioritizing which complaints it takes up, weighing factors such as the harm to the employee, the severity of the complaint, the number of employees potentially affected, and the probability of retaliation.
The administrative lookback period is 3 years before the complaint's filing date, and filing with L&I TOLLS the separate civil-action statute of limitations, meaning it pauses that clock while your administrative complaint is pending. A private civil right of action also exists independently under RCW 49.52.070's double-damages remedy above, and RCW 49.48.030's mandatory attorney's fee award applies to a court judgment for wages, not to the L&I process.
Related Washington Employment Resources
- Washington At-Will Employment Laws
- Washington Whistleblower Laws
- Washington Statute of Limitations
- Washington Debt Collection Laws
- How to Stop Wage Garnishment
- Washington Unclaimed Property
- Washington Bankruptcy Laws
- Final Paycheck Laws by State
- PTO Payout Laws by State
Last updated: 2026-08-12.
More Washington Laws
- Washington At-Will Employment Laws
- Washington Debt Collection Laws
- Washington Statute of Limitations
- Washington Whistleblower Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
How long does an employer have to give you your last paycheck in Washington?
There's no acceleration. Whether you're fired or you quit, your final wages are due at the end of the employer's established pay period, the same schedule as any other paycheck, under RCW 49.48.010(2).
What penalty applies if a Washington employer withholds final wages willfully?
A court can award double (exemplary) damages plus attorney's fees under RCW 49.52.070, and RCW 49.48.030 requires the court to assess reasonable attorney's fees against the employer whenever an employee wins a judgment for wages. Separately, if L&I determines the violation was willful, it can assess a civil penalty under RCW 49.48.083. Those penalty figures are unsettled: the section was amended three times in the 2026 session without reference to one another, so two versions read the greater of $1,000 or 10% of unpaid wages with a $20,000 maximum, while the 2026 c 53 version sets a $1,500 floor and deletes the maximum. A violation of RCW 49.48.010 is also a misdemeanor under RCW 49.48.020.
Does Washington require employers to pay out unused vacation?
No, not generally. L&I treats vacation as a discretionary benefit for private-sector workers and does not enforce payout through its wage-complaint process; a policy dispute goes to court instead.
Is Flower v. T.R.A. Industries a real Washington vacation-pay case?
It's a real Washington Court of Appeals case (also styled Flower v. Huntwood Industries, its d/b/a; both names refer to the same 2005 decision), but it is not a vacation-pay case. It concerns a $10,000 signing-bonus dispute under RCW 49.48.030 and 49.52.070. No verified Washington case establishes that earned vacation is automatically a protected wage.
How do I file a wage complaint in Washington?
With the Department of Labor & Industries (L&I), which must issue a citation or compliance determination within 60 days of accepting your complaint. L&I may extend that 60-day period for good cause on advance written notice to you and the employer, and under the 2026 amendments it prioritizes which complaints it investigates under a published written process. Filing with L&I also tolls the separate civil statute of limitations.
Updates
Removed an unsupported court-division detail from the description of Flower v. Huntwood Industries so it matches the opinion as issued.
Corrected the Washington unpaid-wage penalty discussion: the L&I civil penalty applies only to a violation L&I finds willful, its dollar figures are unsettled because RCW 49.48.083 was amended three times in the 2026 session without reference to one another, the 60-day determination deadline is extendable for good cause, and the page now covers the mandatory attorney's fee award under RCW 49.48.030 and the misdemeanor under RCW 49.48.020 alongside verbatim replacements for three paraphrased blockquotes.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Revised Code of Washington
§ 49.48.010Payment of wages/nonsufficient funds—Employer must reimburse employee for fees charged—Exception—Payment of wages due to employee ceasing work to be at end of pay period—Exceptions—Authorized deductions or withholdings.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1)(a) When any employer pays an employee's wages with any instrument defined by RCW 62A.3-104 that is subsequently returned for nonsufficient funds, the employer shall reimburse the employee for a fee charged by the employee's financial institution for the dishonored instrument so long as the employee presents the instrument within 30 days of its receipt. (b) The employer shall not be liable to reimburse any fees incurred by the employee if the employer presents written confirmation by the employer's financial institution that the instrument was returned for nonsufficient funds due to an error.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 83 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington courts read RCW 49.48.010 as a termination-context statute. Pope v. University of Washington held its limit on wage deductions did not reach a nontermination claim, and Champagne v. Thurston County held the Wage Payment Act does not apply outside the termination context.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hisle v. Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp. (Washington Supreme Court 2004, 151 Wash. 2d 853)“…held the sick leave did not constitute "`wages due'" under RCW 49.48.010, [8] noting the dearth of legislative…”
- Durand v. HIMC CORP. (Court of Appeals of Washington 2009, 214 P.3d 189)✓A terminated executive sued for severance, deferred salary, a bonus and relocation pay; applying RCW 49.48.010's rule that an employer must pay wages due when an employee stops working, the court read his two employment contracts together and affirmed the wage judgment.
- Pope v. University of Washington (Washington Supreme Court 1994, 121 Wash. 2d 479)✓Employees challenged Social Security withheld from their paychecks while still employed; the court read RCW 49.48.010 as governing wages due when employment ends, held its limit on deductions did not reach a nontermination claim, and reversed judgment for the class.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Final Paycheck Laws by State: Deadlines, Penalties, and PTO Payout Rules, Washington Severance Pay Laws (2026): Is Severance Required?
§ 49.52.070Civil liability for double damages.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
Any employer and any officer, vice principal or agent of any employer who shall violate any of the provisions of RCW 49.52.050 (1) and (2) shall be liable in a civil action by the aggrieved employee or his or her assignee to judgment for twice the amount of the wages unlawfully rebated or withheld by way of exemplary damages, together with costs of suit and a reasonable sum for attorney's fees: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the benefits of this section shall not be available to any employee who has knowingly submitted to such violations.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 212 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bostain v. Food Exp., Inc. (Washington Supreme Court 2007, 153 P.3d 846)“…orney fees pursuant to RCW 49.46.090(1), RCW 49.48.030, and RCW 49.52.070. The trial court granted summary judgme…”
- Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc. (Washington Supreme Court 1998, 136 Wash. 2d 152)“…nt to Schilling on her claim for double damages pursuant to RCW 49.52.070, which provides for such damages when a…”
- Chelan County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. County of Chelan (Washington Supreme Court 1987, 109 Wash. 2d 282)“…court doubled this amount as exemplary damages pursuant to RCW 49.52.070. After adding interest on the amount of…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Minimum Wage (2027): $17.73 an Hour From Jan. 1, Punitive Damages in Washington State: Statute-Only Rule (2026)
§ 49.48.083Wage complaints—Duty of department to investigate—Citations and notices of assessment—Civil penalties (as amended by 2026 c 53).In force
(1)(a) If an employee files a wage complaint with the department, the department ((shall))may investigate the wage complaint. In determining which complaints will be investigated, the department must establish a written process by which wage complaints will be prioritized based on factors including, but not limited to, the harm to the affected employee, the severity of the complaint, the number of employees potentially affected, and the probability of retaliation. The department's enforcement priorities must be made publicly available. (b) Unless otherwise resolved, when the department accepts a complaint, the department shall issue either a citation and notice of assessment or a determination of compliance no later than 60 days after the date on which the department ((received))accepted the wage complaint. The department may extend the time period by providing advance written notice to the employee and the employer setting forth good cause for an extension of the time period and specifying the duration of the extension.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Charles Peiffer v. Pro-Cut Concrete Cutting and Breaking, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Washington 2018, 431 P.3d 1018)“…l investigate” a wage complaint filed with the Department. RCW 49.48.083(1). It “shall issue either a citation…”
- Dep't of Lab. & Indus. v. Cannabis Green, LLC (Washington Supreme Court 2025, 569 P.3d 303)“…is Green, alleging overtime violations. CP at 121, 45; see RCW 49.48.083. The employee alleged that…”
- Dep't of Labor & Industries v. Cannabis Green, LLC (Court of Appeals of Washington 2024)“…nistrative actions when an employee files a wage complaint. RCW 49.48.083(1). A “wage complaint” is a written com…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 49.52.050Rebates of wages—False records—Penalty.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
Any employer or officer, vice principal or agent of any employer, whether said employer be in private business or an elected public official, who (1) Shall collect or receive from any employee a rebate of any part of wages theretofore paid by such employer to such employee; or (2) Wilfully and with intent to deprive the employee of any part of his or her wages, shall pay any employee a lower wage than the wage such employer is obligated to pay such employee by any statute, ordinance, or contract; or (3) Shall wilfully make or cause another to make any false entry in any employer's books or records purporting to show the payment of more wages to an employee than such employee received; or (4) Being an employer or a person charged with the duty of keeping any employer's books or records shall wilfully fail or cause another to fail to show openly and clearly in due course in such employer's books and records any rebate of or deduction from any employee's wages; or (5) Shall wilfully receive or accept from any employee any false receipt for wages; Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 243 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc. (Washington Supreme Court 1998, 136 Wash. 2d 152)“…1996) (citing from chapters 49.46 and 49.48 RCW, and noting RCW 49.52.050 in discussing the statutory scheme of s…”
- Cutler v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (Washington Supreme Court 1994, 124 Wash. 2d 749)“…mages for benefits unlawfully withheld under RCW 49.46.010, RCW 49.52.050 and .070, which together provide that a…”
- Rekhter v. Department of Social & Health Services (Washington Supreme Court 2014, 180 Wash. 2d 102)“…ms that DSHS (1) wrongfully withheld wages, in violation of RCW 49.52.050 and .070 and (2) failed to pay the prov…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 49.48.082Wage complaints—Definitions.In force
The definitions in this section apply throughout this section and RCW 49.48.083 through 49.48.086: (1) "Citation" means a written determination by the department that a wage payment requirement has been violated. (2) "Department" means the department of labor and industries. (3) "Determination of compliance" means a written determination by the department that wage payment requirements have not been violated. (4) "Director" means the director of the department of labor and industries, or the director's authorized representative. (5) "Employee" has the meaning provided in: (a) RCW 49.46.010 for purposes of a wage payment requirement set forth in RCW 49.46.020 or 49.46.130; and (b) RCW 49.12.005 for purposes of a wage payment requirement set forth in RCW 49.48.010, 49.52.050, or 49.52.060. (6) "Employer" has the meaning provided in RCW 49.46.010 for purposes of a wage payment requirement set forth in RCW 49.46.020, 49.46.130, 49.48.010, 49.52.050, or 49.52.060. (7) "Notice of assessment" means a written notice by the department that, based on a citation, the employer shall pay the amounts assessed under RCW 49.48.083.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Dep't of Labor & Industries v. Cannabis Green, LLC (Court of Appeals of Washington 2024)“…ng wage violations known as the WPA, currently codified at RCW 49.48.082 through .087. See LAWS OF 2006, ch. 89…”
- Ago (Washington Attorney General Reports 2010)“…s the Wage Payment Act. The Wage Payment Act is codified at RCW 49.48.082 through .087. Under the Wage Payment A…”
- Dep't of Lab. & Indus. v. Cannabis Green, LLC (Washington Supreme Court 2025, 569 P.3d 303)“…loyer has violated one or more wage payment requirements.” RCW 49.48.082(11). 5 Upon receipt of a wage complaint…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 49.48.030Attorney's fee in action on wages—Exception.In force
In any action in which any person is successful in recovering judgment for wages or salary owed to him or her, reasonable attorney's fees, in an amount to be determined by the court, shall be assessed against said employer or former employer: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this section shall not apply if the amount of recovery is less than or equal to the amount admitted by the employer to be owing for said wages or salary.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 226 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bostain v. Food Exp., Inc. (Washington Supreme Court 2007, 153 P.3d 846)“…hey also sought attorney fees pursuant to RCW 49.46.090(1), RCW 49.48.030, and RCW 49.52.070. The trial court gra…”
- Hume v. American Disposal Co. (Washington Supreme Court 1994, 124 Wash. 2d 656)“…ve discharge and age discrimination claims as authorized by RCW 49.48.030 and RCW 49.60.030(2). The Defendants ch…”
- Gaglidari v. Denny's Restaurants, Inc. (Washington Supreme Court 1991, 117 Wash. 2d 426)“…court awarded plaintiff $8,000 in attorney fees pursuant to RCW 49.48.030. Defendant appealed directly to this co…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 1.12.025Construction of multiple amendments to statutes—Publication—Decodification of repealed sections.In force
(1) If at any session of the legislature there are enacted two or more acts amending the same section of the session laws or of the official code, each amendment without reference to the others, each act shall be given effect to the extent that the amendments do not conflict in purpose, otherwise the act last filed in the office of the secretary of state in point of time, shall control: PROVIDED, That if one or more special sessions of the same legislature shall follow any regular session, this rule of construction shall apply to the laws enacted at either, both, any, or all of such sessions. (2) If a section of the session laws or of the official code is amended without reference to another amendment of the same section, the code reviser, in consultation with the statute law committee, may publish the section in the official code with all amendments incorporated therein. The publication of the section under this subsection shall occur only if the statute law committee determines that the amendments do not conflict in purpose or effect. Sections so published constitute prima facie evidence of the law but shall not be construed as changing the meaning of any such law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Taylor (Washington Supreme Court 1982, 97 Wash. 2d 724)“…1981). Both parties and the Court of Appeals rely on RCW 1.12.025 to resolve the dispute concerning the r…”
- Copeland Lumber Co. v. Wilkins (Washington Supreme Court 1969, 75 Wash. 2d 940)“…tate one minute apart, chapter 279 being the later in time. RCW 1.12.025 reads as follows: If at any session o…”
- State v. King (Court of Appeals of Washington 2002, 111 Wash. App. 430)“…r from the definition of sex offense. The State argued that RCW 1.12.025 authorized the court to give effect to…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 49.48.020Penalty for noncompliance with RCW 49.48.010 through 49.48.030 and 49.48.060.In force
Any person, firm, or corporation which violates any of the provisions of RCW 49.48.010 through 49.48.030 and 49.48.060 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2005
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- International Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 46 v. City of Everett (Washington Supreme Court 2002, 146 Wash. 2d 29)“…lear that “person” could mean only a natural person because RCW 49.48.020 separates “person” from a “firm” or “co…”
- INTERN. ASS'N OF FIRE FIGHTERS v. Everett (Washington Supreme Court 2002, 42 P.3d 1265)“…lear that "person" could only mean a natural person because RCW 49.48.020 separates "person" from a "firm" or "co…”
- Wingert v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. (Washington Supreme Court 2002, 146 Wash. 2d 841)“…Inc., 41 Wash.App. 219, 223 , 703 P.2d 315 (1985); RCW 49.48.020. Summary In sum, Yellow Freight's…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 49.48.160Sales representatives—Contract—Agreement.In force
(1) A contract between a principal and a sales representative under which the sales representative is to solicit wholesale orders within this state must be in writing and must set forth the method by which the sales representative's commission is to be computed and paid. The principal shall provide the sales representative with a copy of the contract. A provision in the contract establishing venue for an action arising under the contract in a state other than this state, or establishing conditions for payment of a commission contrary to the provisions of this section, is void. (2) When no written contract has been entered into, any agreement between a sales representative and a principal is deemed to incorporate the provisions of RCW 49.48.150 through 49.48.190. (3)(a) During the course of the contract, a sales representative shall be paid the earned commission and all other moneys earned or payable in accordance with the agreed terms of the contract, but no later than thirty days after receipt of payment by the principal for products or goods sold on behalf of the principal by the sales representative.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Microsoft Corporation v. Atm Shafiqul Khalid (Court of Appeals of Washington 2020)“…ate or federal law; or (2) Except as prohibited under RCW 49.48.160, specifically agreed upon ora…”
- Silver Fern Chemical Inc v. Lyons (District Court, W.D. Washington 2024)“…See Dkt. No. 98 ¶¶ 1.40–1.52. Instead, Defendants cite to RCW 49.48.160, 49.52.050, and 49.52.070. See id.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Sources and References
- RCW 49.48.010, Wages, when due; medium of payment (no-acceleration rule)(apps.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 49.52.070, Civil liability for double damages (willful withholding)(apps.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 49.48.083, Wage complaints; civil penalty; 60-day determination (amended 2026 c 77)(apps.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 49.48.082, Tolling of civil statute of limitations upon wage complaint filing(apps.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Washington L&I, Getting Paid (vacation as a discretionary benefit)(lni.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 49.48.020, Penalty for noncompliance with RCW 49.48.010 through 49.48.030 and 49.48.060 (misdemeanor)(app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 49.48.030, Attorney's fee in action on wages; mandatory fee award on a wage judgment(app.leg.wa.gov)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.