July 2026 Labor Law Updates for Seattle, Washington
July 2026 brought significant developments in Washington State labor law involving youth employment, workplace safety, workers’ compensation, disability discrimination, collective bargaining, public pensions, whistleblower claims, and gig-worker classification. This roundup from HKM Employment Attorneys highlights the month’s most important updates for employees, employers, HR professionals, and compliance leaders.
Washington’s July 2026 employment update underscores the importance of careful compliance with workplace safety, youth employment, worker-classification, accommodation, collective bargaining, and benefit rules. Employees and employers with questions about Washington workplace rights or a specific labor dispute may contact HKM Employment Attorneys for legal guidance.
New Youth Employment Laws Take Effect — Legislation and L&I Rules
Date: July 1, 2026
Summary:
Two Washington laws and accompanying Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) regulations changed the rules governing employment of minors. Under Substitute House Bill 1121, 16- and 17-year-olds enrolled in qualifying career and technical education programs may work the same number of hours during the school year as during school vacations when they work for an employer approved by the program. The same expanded hours apply to minors enrolled in qualifying college programs.
Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1644 strengthened protections for minors in agricultural and nonagricultural employment. The law increased civil penalties for child labor violations, required workplace safety consultations before certain student-learner variances may be approved, and authorized mandatory revocation of an employer’s minor work permit for at least 12 months when qualifying violations cause serious injury or death.
Implications:
Washington employers that hire minors should review work-hour limits, permits, authorization forms, recordkeeping procedures, prohibited duties, and safety requirements. The expanded penalties under ESHB 1644 make child labor compliance particularly important in agriculture, food service, retail, construction, and other industries that commonly employ young workers.
Workers’ Compensation Benefits Increase by 4.9% — Agency Update
Date: July 1, 2026
Summary:
Washington L&I increased time-loss and pension payments by 4.9% for workers injured before July 1, 2025. The increase also applies to survivor benefits paid to qualifying family members of workers who died from an occupational injury or disease.
The annual adjustment reflects the increase in Washington’s average wage. Workers injured between July 1, 2025, and June 30, 2026, will receive their first adjustment on July 1, 2027.
Implications:
Eligible injured workers, pension recipients, and surviving family members should confirm that their payments reflect the new rate. Employers and claims administrators should also update benefit calculations and communications concerning Washington workers’ compensation claims.
L&I Expands Paper Mill Safety Inspections After Fatal Tank Failure — Workplace Safety Enforcement
Date: July 2, 2026
Summary:
Following a tank failure at the Nippon Dynawave mill in Longview that killed 11 workers, L&I opened inspections at Washington’s two other active kraft pulp and paper mills. Inspectors will examine tank maintenance, testing and repair records, chemical-handling procedures, prior spills, employee injuries, and near misses.
L&I also announced a targeted enforcement program covering seven non-kraft pulp and paper mills. That initiative is scheduled to continue through February 2027.
Implications:
Paper mills and other employers that operate large chemical storage tanks should evaluate whether their hazard assessments, maintenance programs, employee training, and written procedures satisfy the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act. The initiative also demonstrates that a serious workplace accident can prompt inspections at other employers operating comparable facilities.
L&I Announces Nearly $700,000 in Farm Labor Contractor Penalties — Enforcement Action
Date: July 6, 2026
Summary:
L&I announced $692,750 in penalties against Superbee Contracting LLC for six categories of alleged farmworker-protection violations involving nearly 1,200 workers. According to the agency, the company failed to provide hundreds of workers with required written information about their work locations, duties, wages, housing, and transportation. L&I also alleged that Superbee failed to document required pay statements, transported workers without liability insurance, employed an unlicensed labor contractor, and provided false information in its licensing application.
The violations allegedly occurred during 2023 and 2024. Superbee had 30 days to appeal the citations and penalties.
Implications:
Washington agricultural employers and farm labor contractors must provide workers with required written job information, maintain payroll documentation, comply with licensing requirements, and carry required transportation insurance. Farms that use outside contractors should also conduct appropriate compliance checks because violations can affect large numbers of particularly vulnerable workers.
Teamsters Local 839 v. Benton County, No. 40861-2-III — Collective Bargaining Ruling
Date: July 7, 2026
Summary:
Benton County suspended and later terminated a sheriff’s office clerical employee. Teamsters Local 839 attempted to challenge both disciplinary decisions through the grievance and arbitration procedure in its collective bargaining agreement.
The Washington Court of Appeals held that the disputes were not arbitrable because the agreement expressly excluded disciplinary actions from its grievance procedure. Under the agreement, sheriff’s office employees were required to challenge discipline through the Benton County Civil Service Commission. The court therefore reversed the order compelling arbitration.
Implications:
Although courts generally favor arbitration of labor disputes, they will enforce clear contractual exclusions. Washington public employees and unions must review the exact language of a collective bargaining agreement and follow any separate civil-service appeal deadlines when challenging suspensions, terminations, or other discipline.
Colombo v. Washington Department of Natural Resources, No. 25-3863 — Public Employee Vaccine-Mandate Ruling
Date: July 10, 2026
Summary:
Washington Department of Natural Resources firefighters alleged that the department violated their free exercise, equal protection, and due process rights when it denied religious accommodations from a COVID-19 vaccination policy and terminated their employment.
In an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the claims. The court held that the department was an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, the rescinded mandate did not present an ongoing violation that could support prospective relief, and the former commissioner was entitled to qualified immunity. It also concluded that the department’s exemption and accommodation process provided constitutionally sufficient notice and an opportunity to respond.
Implications:
The ruling illustrates the procedural barriers employees may face when asserting federal constitutional claims against Washington agencies and officials. Because the decision is unpublished and addresses constitutional claims rather than the full range of employment-discrimination statutes, it should not be read as eliminating employers’ obligations to evaluate religious accommodation requests under other applicable laws.
EEOC v. Covius Services LLC, No. 25-2118 — Disability Discrimination Ruling
Date: July 14, 2026
Summary:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged that Covius Services violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by declining to hire an applicant because of her migraines and medication use. During trial, the federal district court excluded a recruiter’s email describing the employer’s alleged reason for rejecting the applicant and then entered judgment for the company.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court relied on clearly erroneous descriptions of the recruiter’s testimony when it excluded the email. Because the evidence could have allowed a reasonable jury to find for the EEOC, the appellate court vacated the judgment and returned the case for further proceedings.
Implications:
Employers should ensure that hiring decisions are based on legitimate qualifications rather than assumptions about an applicant’s medical condition or medication. Internal emails and communications from staffing agencies may become important evidence in disability-discrimination litigation, even when the decisionmakers later dispute how the information was conveyed.
Seagraves v. Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families, No. 25-3282 — Public Employment and Religious Accommodation Ruling
Date: July 21, 2026
Summary:
Former Department of Children, Youth, and Families employees challenged their separation from employment after the agency granted religious exemptions from Washington’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement but denied accommodations that would have allowed them to remain unvaccinated in their positions.
In a published opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the employees’ federal constitutional claims. The employees did not plausibly allege that the named officials personally participated in the alleged violations. Their claims for prospective relief were also barred because the vaccination requirement had been rescinded before the lawsuit was filed, leaving no ongoing violation for an injunction to address.
Implications:
Washington public employees bringing constitutional claims must identify the personal involvement of individual officials and establish an ongoing violation when seeking prospective relief. The ruling primarily addresses pleading standards and sovereign immunity; it does not eliminate separate statutory rights that may apply to religious discrimination or accommodation disputes.
Rush v. State of Washington, No. 87477-2-I — Public Pension Ruling
Date: July 27, 2026
Summary:
Current and former community and technical college instructors alleged that the state improperly reduced or denied supplemental retirement benefits by applying a revised definition of “break in service.” The state argued that the claims had to be brought under Washington’s Administrative Procedure Act within 30 days of the benefit determinations.
The Washington Court of Appeals rejected that argument. It held that public pension impairment claims may be filed directly in superior court and are subject to a three-year limitations period that begins at retirement. The court therefore allowed the class claims to proceed.
Implications:
Washington public employees who believe the state has unlawfully impaired vested pension rights are not necessarily limited to the Administrative Procedure Act’s short review period. The decision preserves a broader path to court for qualifying pension claims, although employees must still act within three years after retirement.
Krzesni v. Wellpinit School District, No. 25-3308 — Whistleblower and Wrongful Discharge Ruling
Date: July 27, 2026
Summary:
A school district employee alleged that the district declined to renew his contract because he raised concerns about the use of federal grant money for a trip to Hawaii. He brought a federal whistleblower-retaliation claim under the National Defense Authorization Act and a wrongful-discharge claim under Washington law.
The Ninth Circuit held that references to the trip in an annual report and a rhetorical question to a supervisor did not objectively communicate alleged misconduct and therefore were not protected disclosures. Even assuming a later conversation with a federal grant representative was protected, the district had already decided not to renew the employee’s contract. The court also held that expiration and nonrenewal of the contract did not constitute a discharge for purposes of the Washington wrongful-discharge claim.
Implications:
Employees asserting whistleblower protection should clearly communicate the suspected legal, regulatory, or contractual violation to an authorized recipient. The timing of the disclosure and the employer’s decision is also critical. For Washington wrongful-discharge claims, nonrenewal of a fixed-term contract may be treated differently from an affirmative termination.
DoorDash Inc. v. Washington Department of Labor and Industries, No. 60405-1-II — Gig-Worker Classification Ruling
Date: July 28, 2026
Summary:
L&I audited DoorDash for the period from July 2017 through December 2019 and assessed approximately $14.5 million in industrial-insurance premiums and penalties. DoorDash argued that a prior administrative decision involving independent contractors who delivered telephone books prevented L&I from treating DoorDash delivery workers as covered workers.
The Washington Court of Appeals rejected that argument and affirmed the assessment. It concluded that the earlier proceeding involved materially different facts and that DoorDash workers’ contracts called for their personal labor within the meaning of Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act. Approximately 26,500 delivery workers and 8.9 million deliveries were involved in the audit period.
Implications:
Labeling workers as independent contractors does not necessarily exclude them from Washington workers’ compensation coverage. Gig-economy businesses and other companies using contractors should evaluate the actual services performed, the contractual requirements, and the degree to which personal labor is the essence of the arrangement.
Northwest Cascade Inc. v. Washington Department of Labor and Industries, No. 60692-5-II — Workplace Safety Ruling
Date: July 28, 2026
Summary:
L&I cited Northwest Cascade after a traffic flagger worked less than eight feet from a 17-foot-deep construction trench without fall protection. The employer argued that the flagger was not exposed to a fall hazard, was directly involved in the excavation and therefore exempt from the rule, and could not feasibly have used fall-protection equipment.
The Washington Court of Appeals reinstated the two serious WISHA violations. It held that the flagger was exposed to the trench hazard, was not directly involved in excavation while controlling traffic, and could have been protected by a warning or restraint system or positioned farther from the trench. The employer was also required to prepare a written fall-protection work plan.
Implications:
Washington construction employers must assess hazards affecting employees who work near an excavation, even if those employees do not enter the trench. When conventional equipment is difficult to use, employers must consider alternative protective systems, safer positioning, and written fall-protection procedures.
SSHI LLC v. Washington Department of Labor and Industries, No. 41328-4-III — General Contractor Safety Ruling
Date: July 30, 2026
Summary:
L&I cited SSHI, the general contractor for a Spokane housing development, after workers used an extension ladder to reach a second floor where required stairs had not been installed. SSHI argued that a less demanding constructive-knowledge standard should apply because subcontractors performed the work.
In an unpublished opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals rejected that distinction. It held that general contractors and subcontractors are subject to the same standard for determining whether they knew or should have known about a safety violation. Photographs and testimony supported the finding that the missing stairs were visible and would have been discovered through reasonable diligence. The court therefore affirmed the serious, repeat WISHA violation.
Implications:
A Washington general contractor has a nondelegable duty to protect workers throughout a multi-employer construction site. General contractors cannot rely solely on subcontractors to identify and correct visible hazards and should conduct sufficiently detailed site inspections to discover unsafe conditions.
Conclusion: Looking Back on Washington Labor Law Updates from July 2026
Washington’s latest court decisions on wrongful termination, discrimination, unpaid wages, and contract disputes highlight the importance of local legal counsel. At HKM Employment Attorneys in Seattle, our dedicated team provides expert guidance through every step—from filing EEOC or L&I claims to litigating in state and federal court. Whether you’re facing a hostile work environment, ethics investigation, contract breach, or wage and hour concerns, our Seattle office offers proven expertise and local insight you can trust. If recent rulings resonate with your situation, contact us to discuss how we can support you and help hold employers accountable in Washington.
