Washington
Washington Severance Pay Laws (2026): Is Severance Required?
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited October 8, 2026). · 20 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

No Washington statute requires an employer to pay severance. Severance in Washington is owed when a contract, policy or plan promises it, and when it is promised, it can be enforced as wages: a state appeals court held that contractual severance pay was "wages," which brought attorney fees and double damages for willful nonpayment (Dice v. City of Montesano, 128 P.3d 1253 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006); RCW 49.48.030, 49.52.070).
The closest thing to state-ordered layoff pay is Washington's 2025 layoff-notice law, chapter 49.45 RCW. It requires 60 days' notice before a large closing or layoff and makes an employer that skips the notice pay back wages and benefits for the missing days. For how every state handles severance and the federal rules in depth, see our severance pay laws by state guide.
Information last verified on October 8, 2026. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Washington law on severance: the wage statutes as applied to promised severance (RCW 49.46.010, 49.48.010, 49.48.030, 49.52.050 and 49.52.070), the state layoff-notice act (chapter 49.45 RCW), the unemployment rules on severance (WAC 192-190-045 and 192-190-040), limits on separation agreements (RCW 49.44.211) and the non-compete layoff rule (RCW 49.62.020), with short notes on the federal rules that also apply. It does not cover when your last regular paycheck is due; see Washington final paycheck laws. It does not cover benefit amounts or how to file; see Washington unemployment benefits.
Is severance pay required in Washington?
No. We found no Washington statute that requires an employer to pay severance when a job ends. We read the wage-payment chapter (RCW 49.48), the wage-rebate and double-damages sections (RCW 49.52.050 and 49.52.070), the wage definition (RCW 49.46.010), the full layoff-notice act (chapter 49.45 RCW), the non-compete statute and the unemployment rule on severance, and searched the 2026 session for severance bills. We could not run a full-text search of the whole Revised Code of Washington, so this is a targeted review of the sections that matter, not an exhaustive one.
Federal law does not require severance either. The U.S. Department of Labor says, "There is no requirement in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for severance pay," and treats it as a matter of agreement between employer and employee.
For when an employer may end a job in the first place, see our Washington at-will employment page. Two Washington rules come close to requiring pay at separation, and both are narrower than a mandate:
- The layoff-notice act. An employer covered by chapter 49.45 RCW that orders a closing or mass layoff without 60 days' notice owes back pay for the missing days (RCW 49.45.040).
- Non-competes after a layoff. Until June 30, 2027, an employer that wants to enforce a non-compete against a laid-off employee must pay that employee's base salary for the enforcement period (RCW 49.62.020(1)(c)).
Washington's layoff-notice law (chapter 49.45 RCW)
Washington has its own version of the federal WARN Act. The Securing Timely Notification and Benefits for Laid-Off Employees Act (ESSB 5525, ch. 277, Laws of 2025) took effect July 27, 2025 and is codified at chapter 49.45 RCW. It reaches smaller employers than the federal law.

Under RCW 49.45.020(1)(a), "an employer may not order a business closing or a mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period that begins after the employer, pursuant to this section, serves written notice." The notice goes to the Employment Security Department and to each affected employee, or to the employees' union representative.
Who is covered
- Employer: 50 or more employees in Washington, not counting part-time employees. State agencies, political subdivisions and Indian tribes are excluded (RCW 49.45.010(8)).
- Business closing: a permanent or temporary shutdown of a single site that results in employment loss for 50 or more employees, not counting part-time employees (RCW 49.45.010(4)).
- Mass layoff: a reduction in force that is not part of a closing and causes employment loss for 50 or more employees, not counting part-time employees, in any 30-day period (RCW 49.45.010(10)).
- Part-time employee: someone who averages fewer than 20 hours a week or was employed for fewer than 6 of the last 12 months.
The notice must contain the elements the federal WARN Act required as of July 27, 2025, plus the site, whether the action is permanent, the expected schedule, the affected job titles and a statement about relocation or contracting out. The act allows exceptions for an employer seeking capital, unforeseeable business circumstances, natural disasters and certain construction work (RCW 49.45.030).
The act also protects employees on leave. An employer may not include an employee who is on paid family or medical leave in a mass layoff, except in certain of the circumstances listed in RCW 49.45.030(1) (RCW 49.45.060).
What an employer owes if it skips the notice
The remedy is back pay, not severance. Under RCW 49.45.040, each aggrieved employee is owed back pay for each day of the violation, at no less than the higher of the employee's average regular rate over the last three years or final regular rate, plus the cost of benefits, including medical expenses the employer's plan would have covered. Liability is capped at 60 days.
The amount is reduced by wages the employer paid for the period, any voluntary and unconditional payment the employer made, payments under the federal WARN Act and certain payments made to third parties for the employee's benefits (RCW 49.45.040). An employee, the Employment Security Department or a union may sue within three years of the violation, and a court may award attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff. A court cannot stop the closing or layoff itself.
An employer that fails to give the required notice to the Employment Security Department is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 a day, paid into the state general fund. The penalty is waived if the employer pays the RCW 49.45.040 amounts within three weeks from the date it orders the closing or layoff (RCW 49.45.050). The Employment Security Department administers and enforces the act (RCW 49.45.070).
How it compares with federal WARN
The federal WARN Act still applies in Washington, and its notice period runs at the same time as any state notice period (29 U.S.C. 2105).
| Rule | Washington (chapter 49.45 RCW) | Federal WARN (29 U.S.C. 2101-2104) |
|---|---|---|
| Employer size | 50 or more employees in Washington, excluding part-time (49.45.010) | 100 or more employees excluding part-time, or 100 or more, counting part-time, who together work at least 4,000 hours a week, not counting overtime (2101(a)(1)) |
| Notice period | 60 days (49.45.020) | 60 days (2102(a)) |
| Who gets notice | Employment Security Department and affected employees or their union (49.45.020) | Employees or their union, the state dislocated worker unit and the local government (2102(a)) |
| Back-pay cap | Up to 60 days (49.45.040) | Up to 60 days, and no more than half the days employed (2104(a)) |
| Enforcement | Suit by an employee, union or the Employment Security Department within three years; the department enforces (49.45.040, 49.45.070) | Private suit in federal court; the Department of Labor does not enforce (2104) |
Severance your employer promised: wages under Washington law
Washington statutes do not mention severance by name. Washington's Minimum Wage Act defines "wage" as "compensation due to an employee by reason of employment" (RCW 49.46.010), and two remedy statutes make unpaid wages expensive for an employer:
- Attorney fees. RCW 49.48.030 requires an award of attorney fees when a person recovers judgment for wages or salary owed, unless the recovery is no more than the amount the employer admitted owing.
- Double damages. RCW 49.52.050(2) and 49.52.070 make an employer liable for twice the amount withheld when it willfully, with intent to deprive the employee, fails to pay wages it is "obligated to pay ... by any statute, ordinance, or contract."
In Dice v. City of Montesano, 128 P.3d 1253 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006), the employee's contract promised a lump sum of three months' salary on termination without cause. Division II of the Court of Appeals held that "the three months' salary due Dice constitutes 'wages' because it derives solely from Dice's employment contract with the City." Because the city ignored unambiguous contract language, the court found the nonpayment willful and awarded double damages under RCW 49.52.050(2) and 49.52.070.
Two limits on that holding. Dice involved a written contract with a fixed payment; it did not address discretionary severance or a formal company plan. And the court noted that a bona fide dispute over whether pay is owed generally defeats a finding of willfulness; it found no such dispute because the contract language was unambiguous. If your severance comes from a formal benefit plan, federal law may govern instead: ERISA supersedes state laws that relate to covered employee benefit plans (29 U.S.C. 1144(a)).
When promised severance must be paid
Washington's final-pay statute requires that when an employee leaves, "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" (RCW 49.48.010(2)). The statute says nothing specific about when severance is due, so the payment date in your contract or policy is the place to start. For the rest of the last-paycheck rules, see Washington final paycheck laws.
Where a severance claim can go
The Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) takes wage complaints for violations of RCW 49.48.010 and 49.52.050 and 49.52.060 (RCW 49.48.082). Since June 11, 2026, L&I "may" investigate a wage complaint rather than being required to, and must prioritize complaints by factors including harm and severity (2SHB 2479, ch. 53, Laws of 2026). When it accepts a complaint, it must issue a decision within 60 days unless it extends that period for good cause, and it cannot investigate violations more than three years old (RCW 49.48.083).
The statutes we read do not say whether L&I will treat unpaid contractual severance as a wage claim, so ask L&I directly before relying on that route. A private lawsuit is the route Dice used. We did not verify the deadline for filing a contract-based severance lawsuit in Washington; a lawyer licensed in the state can tell you which limitations period applies.
Severance and Washington unemployment benefits
Severance generally does not reduce Washington unemployment benefits. The Employment Security Department's rule, WAC 192-190-045, reads in full:

"When payment for your separation from work is assigned to any period before the date of separation, it is considered severance pay. Severance pay is not deductible from benefits."
Other separation money is treated differently. Under WAC 192-190-040, back pay and a settlement due to loss of wages are treated as back pay and must be reported; if you received benefits for the same weeks, you may have an overpayment. Read how your agreement describes each payment, since the rule turns on what the payment is for and the period it is assigned to.
Volunteering for a layoff
A 2026 law addresses workers who volunteer to be laid off. Under HB 2264 (ch. 150, Laws of 2026), a new section in chapter 50.20 RCW, a person is treated as unemployed through no fault of their own if the employer first announced in writing a layoff or reduction in force inviting employees to offer to be included, the employee offered, and the employer terminated the employee as a result. The employer may let employees rescind their offer.
The session law lists an effective date of June 11, 2026, and its text applies to separations on or after June 14, 2026. It does not apply when the employer merely changes benefits or encourages early retirement or separation outside that process. For benefit amounts and how to file, see Washington unemployment benefits.
What a Washington severance agreement cannot make you give up
Washington limits silence clauses in agreements between employers and employees, including "agreements to pay compensation in exchange for the release of a legal claim" (RCW 49.44.211). Under that section:
- A nondisclosure or nondisparagement provision is void and unenforceable to the extent it covers conduct the employee reasonably believed was illegal discrimination, illegal harassment, illegal retaliation, a wage and hour violation or sexual assault, or conduct against a clear mandate of public policy.
- The agreement may still keep the settlement amount confidential.
- An employer that violates the section is liable in a civil action for the greater of actual damages or $10,000, plus reasonable attorney fees.
- Washington law governs these provisions for Washington residents.
- Trade secrets and confidential business information that do not involve illegal acts can still be protected; see our Washington trade secret laws page.
A release in a severance agreement also cannot take away your right to unemployment benefits. Under RCW 50.40.010, any agreement by an individual "to waive, release, or commute his or her rights to benefits or any other rights under this title shall be void," and no employer shall "require or accept any waiver of any right hereunder by any individual in his or her employ."
We found no Washington statute or case addressing whether a private severance release can waive a claim for unpaid wages, so this page states no rule on that question.
Federal law adds its own limits. If you are 40 or older and the agreement releases age-discrimination claims, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act requires at least 21 days to consider it (45 days in a group layoff) and 7 days to revoke after signing (29 U.S.C. 626(f)). The federal Speak Out Act makes a nondisclosure or nondisparagement clause agreed to before a sexual assault or sexual harassment dispute arises unenforceable where the conduct is alleged to violate federal, tribal or state law (42 U.S.C. 19403).
Non-compete terms in a severance agreement
Until June 30, 2027, a non-compete is void for an employee terminated as the result of a layoff "unless enforcement of the noncompetition covenant includes compensation equivalent to the employee's base salary at the time of termination for the period of enforcement minus compensation earned through subsequent employment" (RCW 49.62.020(1)(c)). From June 30, 2027, ESHB 1155 (ch. 149, Laws of 2026) makes every non-compete void and unenforceable regardless of when it was signed, while narrowly defined nonsolicitation agreements remain permitted.
Reading and negotiating a Washington severance offer
A severance offer is usually a contract: payment in exchange for a release and other promises. Before signing, check whether the agreement describes the payment as severance or as back pay or a wage settlement, since that label can matter for unemployment under WAC 192-190-045 and 192-190-040. Check any confidentiality or nondisparagement clause against RCW 49.44.211, and any non-compete against the layoff-pay rule above. If you were part of a closing or mass layoff, ask whether the employer gave 60 days' notice under chapter 49.45 RCW. Our severance pay laws by state guide covers the general points to review.
Recent changes in Washington
| Law | Status | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| ESSB 5525, ch. 277, Laws of 2025 | In effect July 27, 2025 | Created chapter 49.45 RCW: 60-day layoff notice, back pay and benefits liability, Employment Security Department enforcement |
| ESB 6106, ch. 86, Laws of 2026 | In effect March 17, 2026 | Excludes Indian tribes from the notice act's employer definition; exempts employee names and addresses in notices from public disclosure (RCW 42.56.230) |
| 2SHB 2479, ch. 53, Laws of 2026 | In effect June 11, 2026 | L&I "may" investigate wage complaints and must prioritize them; the 60-day decision clock now runs from acceptance of a complaint (RCW 49.48.083) |
| HB 2264, ch. 150, Laws of 2026 | Effective June 11, 2026; applies to separations on or after June 14, 2026 | Treats employer-initiated volunteer layoffs as no-fault separations for unemployment |
| ESHB 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026 | Signed into law; takes effect June 30, 2027 | Voids all non-competes; employers must make reasonable efforts by October 1, 2027 to notify workers whose covenants are still running |
We found no 2026 bill that would create a severance mandate. Bills for the 2027 session, which begins in January 2027, had not been reviewed when this page was verified.
Related
- Severance pay laws by state
- Washington final paycheck laws
- Washington unemployment benefits
- Washington at-will employment
- Washington trade secret laws
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Washington severance and layoff law, including chapter 49.45 RCW, RCW 49.48, RCW 49.52, RCW 49.44.211, RCW 49.62.020 and WAC 192-190-045. It is not legal advice. The information was verified on October 8, 2026. For advice about your situation, contact the Washington Department of Labor and Industries or the Employment Security Department, a legal aid office, or a lawyer licensed in Washington.
Last updated: October 8, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is severance pay required by law in Washington State?
No. We found no Washington statute requiring an employer to pay severance; it is owed only when a contract, policy or plan promises it. Washington's layoff-notice law (chapter 49.45 RCW) requires 60 days' notice, not severance.
Is severance considered wages in Washington?
When a contract promises it, yes in at least one appellate decision: Dice v. City of Montesano, 128 P.3d 1253 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006), held contractual severance was "wages" for attorney fees under RCW 49.48.030 and double damages under RCW 49.52.070.
Does Washington have a state WARN Act?
Yes. Chapter 49.45 RCW, effective July 27, 2025, covers employers with 50 or more employees in Washington and requires 60 days' written notice to the Employment Security Department and affected employees before a business closing or mass layoff of 50 or more employees.
What happens if an employer does not give 60 days' notice of a layoff in Washington?
Each affected employee can recover back pay and the cost of benefits for each day of the violation, up to 60 days, and must sue within three years (RCW 49.45.040). The employer also faces a civil penalty of up to $500 a day, waived if it pays the back pay within three weeks of ordering the layoff (RCW 49.45.050).
Does severance affect unemployment benefits in Washington?
Under WAC 192-190-045, payment for your separation that is assigned to a period before the separation date is severance pay and "is not deductible from benefits." Back pay and a settlement for lost wages are reportable and can cause an overpayment (WAC 192-190-040).
Can I get unemployment if I volunteered for a layoff in Washington?
Under ch. 150, Laws of 2026, a person separated on or after June 14, 2026 who volunteered after the employer announced in writing a layoff inviting volunteers, and whom the employer then laid off as a result, is treated as unemployed through no fault of their own. It does not cover early retirement or separation offers made outside that process.
Can a Washington severance agreement include a confidentiality clause?
It may keep the settlement amount confidential, but a clause barring you from discussing conduct you reasonably believed was illegal discrimination, harassment, retaliation, a wage and hour violation or sexual assault is void, and an employer that enforces one is liable for the greater of actual damages or $10,000 plus attorney fees (RCW 49.44.211).
How long do I have to review a severance agreement in Washington?
We found no Washington statute setting a review period. If you are 40 or older and the agreement releases age claims, federal law requires at least 21 days to consider it (45 in a group layoff) and 7 days to revoke after signing (29 U.S.C. 626(f)).
When does Washington's non-compete ban take effect?
June 30, 2027. Under ch. 149, Laws of 2026, all non-competes become void and unenforceable on that date regardless of when they were signed, and employers must make reasonable efforts by October 1, 2027 to notify workers whose covenants are still running.
Updates
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 Final Paycheck Laws: No Acceleration, Real Penalties
§ 49.45.040Violations of notice requirement—Liability—Civil action.In force
(1) An employer that orders a business closing or mass layoff without providing a notice required by RCW 49.45.020 is liable to each aggrieved employee who suffers an employment loss because of the closing or layoff for: (a) Back pay for each day of violation not less than the higher of: (i) The average regular rate of compensation received by the employee during the last three years of the employee's employment; or (ii) The employee's final rate of compensation; and (b) The value of the cost of any benefits to which the employee would have been entitled had their employment not been lost, including the cost of any medical expenses incurred by the employee that would have been covered under an employee benefit plan. (2) Liability under this section must be calculated for the period of the employer's violation up to a maximum of 60 days.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 49.52.070Civil liability for double damages.In forcecited in 3 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 2026: $17.13 Statewide and Local Rates
§ 49.44.211Prohibited nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions—Retaliation by employer prohibited—Penalties—Construction.In force
(1) A provision in an agreement by an employer and an employee not to disclose or discuss conduct, or the existence of a settlement involving conduct, that the employee reasonably believed under Washington state, federal, or common law to be illegal discrimination, illegal harassment, illegal retaliation, a wage and hour violation, or sexual assault, or that is recognized as against a clear mandate of public policy, is void and unenforceable. Prohibited nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions in agreements concern conduct that occurs at the workplace, at work-related events coordinated by or through the employer, between employees, or between an employer and an employee, whether on or off the employment premises. Prohibited nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions include those contained in employment agreements, independent contractor agreements, agreements to pay compensation in exchange for the release of a legal claim, or any other agreement between an employer and an employee. (2) This section does not prohibit the enforcement of a provision in any agreement that prohibits the disclosure of the amount paid in settlement of a claim.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 49.62.020When void and unenforceable. (Effective until June 30, 2027.)In force
(1) A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable: (a)(i) Unless the employer discloses the terms of the covenant in writing to the prospective employee no later than the time of the initial oral or written acceptance of the offer of employment and, if the agreement becomes enforceable only at a later date due to changes in the employee's compensation, the employer specifically discloses that the agreement may be enforceable against the employee in the future; or (ii) If the covenant is entered into after the commencement of employment, unless the employer provides independent consideration for the covenant; (b) Unless the employee's earnings from the party seeking enforcement, when annualized, exceed one hundred thousand dollars per year. This dollar amount must be adjusted annually in accordance with RCW 49.62.040; (c) If the employee is terminated as the result of a layoff, unless enforcement of the noncompetition covenant includes compensation equivalent to the employee's base salary at the time of termination for the period of enforcement minus compensation earned through subsequent employment during the period of enforcement.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Dice v. City of Montesano, 128 P.3d 1253 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006)(courtlistener.com)
- RCW 49.52.070(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Chapter 49.45 RCW, Securing Timely Notification and Benefits for Laid-Off Employees Act(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- ESSB 5525, Chapter 277, Laws of 2025 (session law)(lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov).gov
- U.S. Department of Labor, Severance Pay(dol.gov).gov
- RCW 49.62.020(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. 2101-2109 (govinfo)(govinfo.gov).gov
- RCW 49.48.010(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1144 (govinfo)(govinfo.gov).gov
- RCW 49.48.083(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- 2SHB 2479, Chapter 53, Laws of 2026 (session law)(lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov).gov
- WAC 192-190-045, Severance pay(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- WAC 192-190-040(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- HB 2264, Chapter 150, Laws of 2026 (session law)(lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 49.44.211(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 626(f) (govinfo)(govinfo.gov).gov
- EEOC, Understanding Waivers of Discrimination Claims in Employee Severance Agreements(eeoc.gov).gov
- Speak Out Act, Pub. L. 117-224 (govinfo)(govinfo.gov).gov
- ESHB 1155, Chapter 149, Laws of 2026 (session law)(lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov).gov
- ESB 6106, Chapter 86, Laws of 2026 (session law)(lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Washington RCW 50.40.010 (waiver of unemployment rights)(app.leg.wa.gov).gov